Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Disability Benefit

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have received disability benefit in the present financial year; and how many received it in 1978–79.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Since 1978–79 there have been large increases in the numbers of people receiving benefits because of long-term sickness or disability. For example, the numbers receiving invalidity benefit have increased by 88 per cent. to 1·1 million; attendance allowance by 186 per cent. to 760,000; and mobility allowance by 458 per cent. to 530,000. I shall, with permission, circulate full details in the Official Report.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. It shows the Government's continuing commitment to helping those with disabilities. I am sure that it will be welcomed not only by disabled people, but by all members of the community. Will my hon. Friend comment on the expenditure required in real terms in the present year compared with that in 1978–79?

Mr. Scott: This year expenditure will amount to some £7·3 billion, which represents a £3·5 billion real terms increase over the 1978–79 figure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are quite a number of people who are registered as disabled, yet who do not qualify as disabled for the purpose of housing benefit? Does he have any idea of the numbers involved? Does he have any proposals to remedy this, and to ensure that those who qualify receive their benefit more quickly than is sometimes the case?

Mr. Scott: We are always anxious to ensure that benefits are paid speedily once people have qualified for them. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about housing benefit.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, while we can take pride in the fact that, as a party and a Government, we have been far more generous—quite rightly so—to the disabled than the Labour party, it is also fair to point out that, at this important Question Time, there are only four Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber?

Mr. Scott: I am afraid that the Opposition must answer for that.

Mr. Alfred Morris: While everyone knows that more claimants means higher costs, how many disablement benefits have not increased in real value since 1979? How many disabled people lost free prescriptions and free school meals last April? How many are on transitional protection and will thus have no increase in their benefits this April? Will their standard of living not, therefore, slump as rising prices eat further into this so-called protection? Again, how many disabled people have had their housing benefit cut?

Mr. Scott: I can understand the hon. Gentleman clutching at straws as he tries to protect the Labour Government's record. Of the £3·5 billion extra money in real terms which this Government are spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled, some £3 billion is because of the wider scope of those benefits—more people are applying for them—and £½ billion is because of increases in real terms in the level of benefits.

Following is the information:


Estimated average numbers of weekly benefit payments at any one time



Numbers


Benefit
1978–79
1988–89


Invalidity Benefit
600,000
1,130,000


Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit
210,000
210,000


War Disablement Pension
291,000
195,000


Attendance Allowance
265,000
760,000


Invalid Care Allowance
6,000
100,000


NCIP/SDA
150,000
265,000


Mobility Allowance
95,000
530,000


Income-related benefits
355,000
450,000



1,972,000
3,640,000

Notes: Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one benefit at any one time.

Social Fund

Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund to date.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): We have been closely monitoring the social fund, and the original fears which were expressed about the adequacy of its budget, the introduction of loans, the discretionary nature of the scheme and the review system, have proved to be unfounded. Loans have reached anticipated levels of expenditure and community care grants have steadily risen to 77 per cent. of anticipated monthly expenditure.
Over 600,000 interest-free loans have been made and more than 86,000 community care grants have been awarded. The review system is proving to be a speedy and effective means of handling disputed decisions. Reviews are completed in a matter of days rather than the weeks it took for an appeal to be completed.

Ms. Quin: Despite what the Minister has said. will he agree that urgent changes in the way that the social fund works are needed, especially if those who deserve grants are to be in a position to take them up? Will he agree that


so far all the independent evidence shows that the social fund has failed to relieve the poverty which the Government said it was designed to tackle?

Mr. Moore: I had hoped that the hon. Lady would have listened to what I said before she read out her prepared question. I shall continue, as the Government must and should, to monitor the situation. I am not completely content because I believe that the officers have been applying the conditions for the community care grants too rigidly. I am determined to ensure that it is a success and that all of the fundamental objections raised when the social fund was first introduced are disproved.

Mr. McCrindle: I welcome a large part of my right hon. Friend's reply. Does that mean that the fears that have been expressed by some—dare I remind him, on both sides of the House—that the cash-limited arrangements may prove inadequate, are likely to be allayed? Is he satisfied that the money allocated will be adequate at least in this financial year? To put this matter in perspective, will my right hon. Friend remind the House what would happen if the amount allocated proved to be inadequate?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we announced in the uprating statement the allocation for 1989–90, which was confirmed in the autumn statement and in the recent public expenditure White Paper. Despite a happy massive reduction in unemployment and therefore a major reduction in case load, those allocations have been maintained. Therefore there should be an increase per case in the funds available. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend. I know that he takes a serious interest in this and I know that he will have noted carefully what I said in my opening answer.

Miss Lestor: When the Minister reviews the social fund, will he consider particularly some of the problems that have arisen in Salford—I am sure similar problems have been encountered in other places—where people who have been in hospital a long time and those in residential care who cannot get other accommodation, have had to refuse private rented accommodation because the social fund does not cover deposits that are required in that sector? He also said that he would make some comment to the House on the Barnado's report on the problems of youngsters coming out of care and their accommodation difficulties. Will he do so now?

Mr. Moore: Obviously I will watch carefully how the social fund works because I am determined to ensure that this much more effective method of helping those in need is monitored and adjusted if necessary. Recently I met representatives of certain organisations who raised the difficulties that they believe are being faced by a particular group of 16 and 17-year-olds. Obviously I shall consider that matter with care.
I should stress to the hon. Lady that if one considers the different offices and the differential way in which the rules on community care grants in particular are applied, one realises that serious application by social workers, by local authorities and by diligent Members of Parliament—I know that the hon. Lady is such a Member—will ensure that community care grants are effectively spent.

Mrs. Roe: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there are any items or expenses, previously excluded from the single payment expenses, which are now covered under the social fund?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind me that, because it is a discretionary fund, there are many examples of local expenditure that all sides of the House would welcome. One office, for example, paid for a holiday for a family whose young daughter had been seriously sexually abused—not surprisingly all the family had been under considerable stress. In another case a £500 grant was given for a teletext television for a deaf elderly pensioner, living alone, who had become extremely isolated. I could give many other illustrations of payments which could not have been covered under the old single payments system.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many offices are now reporting problems because people are having great difficulty in trying to fill in the 17-page form? Has he any ideas for changing that form, which is causing a great deal of trouble?

Mr. Moore: On a previous occasion my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that we were looking at the form and we shall continue to do so. When that form is filled out with the help of the staff at local offices, it is producing considerable success in terms of the numbers of applications for grants. I am constantly looking at all of our forms because I am anxious to ensure that those who are entitled to receive those benefits with the help of the form and our offices.

Personal Pension Schemes

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many personal pension schemes have been established at the latest available date.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Nearly I million people have opted so far to take out a personal pension, through 122 personal pension schemes.

Mr. Stern: I am most grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend recollect the way in which the Opposition fought the principle of personal pensions line by line and clause by clause during consideration of the Social Security Bill 1986? Does he agree that that shows, once again, how the Opposition object to any extension of freedom, although more than I million people have so far supported this extension of freedom?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that there was no enthusiasm by the Opposition for personal pensions. The figures that I have just given my hon. Friend show that there is enormous enthusiasm among those sections of the work force which, by and large, were not eligible to join the occupational pension schemes. Quite clearly, they wanted to do so.

"Businessr j 3–1 of Service" (Report)

Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is acting on any of the recommendations made in the "Business of Service" report.

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how relocation of social security office work out of London will affect service to the customer.

Mr. Moore: I have accepted most of the recommendations of the "Business of Service" report and I am in the process of implementing them. Relocating some social security work will enable us to improve the current unsatisfactory service that customers receive in some London offices. By moving backroom work out of London we shall be able to provide a better, more efficient and responsive service to our customers. All the affected London offices will remain open, some on better sites, and more branch offices will be opened in poorly served areas.

Mr. Summerson: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no social security offices in my constituency will be closed? If any are closed that will obviously result in a far worse service to my constituents.

Mr. Moore: As I have said, there are no proposals to close offices although some are not regarded by our staff as being in the best locations to serve my hon. Friend's customers who are also, happily, his constituents.

Mr. Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend tell us the effect of moving the London social security offices to the regions? Are any scheduled to go to Sheffield, Hallam? Assuming that the answer is no, will he consider moving some there because I am sure that that would benefit the city greatly?

Mr. Moore: On this occasion I cannot give any joy to my hon. Friend. I commend him for the way in which he argues for his constituents. The three social security centres that I announced recently will be in Glasgow, Belfast and the Wigan area. We shall, of course, consider further relocation for parts of my headquarter operation. I shall take seriously the interests of the assisted areas in parts of the country where, tragically, there are still higher levels of unemployment than I would like.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the computer projects, on whose efficient operation the success of this proposal depends, the social fund program for example is now running on its sixth version and still contains 100 mistakes? Is he aware that when queries are made at local offices about delays and mistakes in the payment of benefits that are handled centrally, such as some disability benefits, the usual answer is, "That has nothing to do with us, it is a matter for Blackpool, Glasgow or Newcastle"—or wherever? It is widely believed that these delays occur because there is not enough staff at those locations to cope with the workload. Does the Secretary of State expect the House to believe that the proposals will lead to an improved service while still saving £4 million a year?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Lady is wrong, and not only on the detailed facts about the computer program. I had hoped that she would wish to commend it because, despite the initial teething troubles in parts of the computer program, it is one of the most successful operations by civil servants that I have seen in our country for generations. However, that is not relevant to the actual decisions. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the key problems relate to the difficulties of many employers in London about high wastage, rates, working conditions and the costs of London work. I noted carefully the warm reaction by

many hon. Members to the sensible relocation to those areas of the country that will benefit. That relocation also helps customers, staff and the taxpayer.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: In his laudable attempts to improve the service to the customer by the relocation of Social Security Department facilities, will my right hon. Friend bend his mind to the facilities that have already been relocated? The attendance allowance delays that are reported to me in my surgery are getting far and away out of hand. There is inordinate delay in dealing with applications and appeals relating to attendance allowance. That needs to be corrected. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to do so?

Mr. Moore: Of course. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are discussing relocation and the ability of our centres to give good customer service, whether on family credit or attendance allowance. I am determined to achieve such a service. Despite current difficulties we have seen considerable improvements in the last year.

Social Fund (St. Helens)

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the social fund allocation for his Department's offices in St. Helens for the next two years.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I will, with permission, circulate details of the social fund allocations for 1989–90 to offices in Great Britain in the Official Report. I shall also place a copy in the Library. The allocation to St. Helens is £806,802 comprising £574,468 for loans and £232,334 for grants. Decisions on the allocations for 1990–91 will be made nearer that time.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that in St. Helens, the DSS has spent less than 40 per cent. of this year's budget for community grants? Does he accept that one of the reasons for this is the bewildering complexity of the forms that applicants have to fill in? I recently spent over an hour filling in one of those forms for a confused pensioner. Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he fixes the budgets for the next two years, he will greatly simplify the application forms? That would greatly improve the take-up, because the problem is that people do not understand the forms.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the expenditure of his local office on grants in December went up to 50 per cent. I should like to place on record the appreciation of the local office of his interest in seeing that these grants are paid to the people who need them.
Such a constructive approach will help to ensure that this money, which is intended for those in most need, gets to them. If we can also assist by improving the forms still further, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we shall certainly do so. As these grants go to those in the community in most need of assistance, we depend on other organisations, local Members of Parliament and social services departments to assist in ensuring that the money reaches the people for whom it is intended.

Following are the details:




Social Fund Budget allocations 1989–90



Loans
Grants
Total


1. London (North) Region





Acton
285,951
124,062
410,013


Aylesbury
133.151
59,100
192,251


Banbury
87,735
38,153
125,888


Barking
313,684
140,139
453,824


Barnet
100,310
46,161
146,471


Basildon
515,435
228,294
743,729


Bedford
247,883
107,485
355,368


Braintree
133,622
59,026
192,647


Bury St. Edmunds
150,749
66,576
217,325


Cambridge
258,778
117,435
376,213


Canning Town
263,616
110,592
374,208


Chelmsford
133,780
60,757
194,537


Clacton
109,000
48,123
157,124


Colchester
179,783
77,927
257,710


Cricklewood
250,516
107,215
357,731


Diss
34,061
15,683
49,745


Dunstable
89,722
40,087
129,809


Ealing
266,310
115,991
382,301


Edgware
161,636
69,648
231,284


Edmonton
228,510
101,596
330,105


Euston
254,847
109,969
364,816


Finsbury Park
505,202
217,845
723,047


Grays
234,643
104,912
339,555


Great Yarmouth
203,304
92,448
295,752


Hackney
654,199
275,244
929,443


Harlesden
437,683
190,576
628,259


Harlow
201,413
89,825
291,238


Harrow
194,377
82,843
277,220


Hemel Hempstead
117,928
53,616
171,544


Hendon
231,161
101,149
332,310


Hertford
111,065
49,724
160,790


High Wycombe
160,748
74,785
235,532


Highgate
391,619
169,589
561,208


Hoxton
385,192
169,034
554,226


Ilford
378,610
167,826
546,436


Ipswich
263,156
114,982
378,138


Kings Lynn
247,648
108,361
356,009


Leytonstone
327,224
144,319
471,543


Lowestoft
186,885
82,482
269,366


Luton
348,434
143,619
492,053


Milton Keynes
290,573
124,913
415,486


Neasden
398,912
166,445
565,357


Norwich Chantry
286,113
125,940
412,054


Norwich Mountergate
454,483
192,742
647,225


Notting Hill
236,467
100,841
337,309


Oxford
442,510
188,702
631,212


Paddington
364,673
168,491
533,164


Peterborough
646,116
273,462
919,578


Plaistow
357,728
152,462
510,190


Poplar
366,524
155,452
521,976


Romford
213,071
97,879
310,950


Shoreditch
342,534
153,003
495,537


Southall
209,844
95,113
304,957


Southend
274,268
120,203
394,471


St. Albans
120,455
55,978
176,434


Stepney
198,289
84,902
283,191


Stevenage
198,476
85,672
284,148


Stoke Newington
308,676
132,623
441,299


Thames North
19,115
6,861
25,976


Tottenham
440,379
187,222
627,601


Uxbridge
121,234
52,991
174,225


Walthamstow
262,535
118,346
380,881


Watford
119,905
55,380
175,285


Wood Green
201,433
92,723
294,155


Woodgrange Park
587,725
246,991
834,716


Totals
17,241,606
7,512,537
24,754,143


2. London (South) region





Aldershot
169,186
72,675
241,861


Andover
66,391
30,294
96,685


Ashford
104,572
47,027
151,599


Balham
418,883
179,798
598,680


Basingstoke
83,582
35,833
119,415


Battersea
424,376
191,711
616,087

Loans
Grants
Total


Bexley
243,385
108,041
351,426


Bloomsbury
181,066
84,079
265,145


Bognor Regis
108,363
48,769
157,132


Bracknell
104,382
47,919
152,301


Brighton
358,554
161,888
520,443


Brixton
381,073
170,379
551,452


Bromley
157,237
72,107
229,344


Camberwell
409,866
175,936
585,802


Canterbury
123,008
58,173
181,181


Chatham
270,121
109,755
379,876


Chelsea
331,875
143,897
475,772


Chichester
60,968
28,308
89,276


City (London)
99,362
44,892
144,254


Crawley
122,128
54,771
176,899


Croydon
346,726
151,909
498,635


Crystal Palace
394,266
179,061
573,329


Dartford
99,943
45,234
145,176


Dover
92,882
40,139
133,021


Eastbourne
166,062
75,210
241,272


Eltham
73,952
30,853
104,705


Epson
55,197
25,109
80,307


Fareham
199,443
82,192
281,635


Folkestone
116,633
50,778
167,412


Gravesend
112,102
47,824
159,926


Greenwich Park
518,737
221,658
740,394


Guildford
118,566
55,356
173,922


Hastings
216,838
105,866
322,704


Havant
213,702
88,386
302,088


Hither Green
124,471
55,010
179,481


Hounslow
379,484
165,053
544,537


Hove
165,047
78,407
243,453


Isle of Wight
219,260
94,957
314,217


Kennington Park
369,213
153,717
522,931


Kensington
194,750
84,225
278,974


Kingston
147,986
66,848
214,834


Lewes
104,012
46,160
150,172


Lewisham
562,602
239,216
801,818


Maidstone
153,068
67,957
221,025


Mitcham
124,714
57,076
181,790


New Forest
142,157
60,615
202,772


Newbury
79,425
36,403
115,828


Orpington
87,293
39,371
126,664


Oval
368,777
164,364
533,140


Peckham
329,774
145,861
475,635


Portsmouth North
174,625
76,515
251,140


Portsmouth South
159,300
68,800
228,101


Reading
373,843
159,827
533,670


Redhill
99,776
45,275
145,050


Rochester
115,513
49,712
165,225


Sittingbourne
169,896
70,100
239,996


Slough
218,278
94,424
312,701


Southampton
482,712
201,592
684,304


Southwark
449,003
208,657
657,660


Streatham
353,899
150,008
503,907


Surbiton
62,437
27,105
89,543


Sutton
76,670
33,951
110,621


Thames South
24,631
9,558
34,188


Thanet
251,531
113,336
364,866


Tunbridge Wells
113,626
51,854
165,480


Twickenham
76,998
35,246
112,244


Wandsworth
207,195
90,505
297,700


Westminster
157,312
70,120
227,432


Wimbledon
167,140
71328
238,469


Winchester
94,606
40,696
135,302


Woking
150,769
65,440
216,209


Woolwich
733,974
310,327
1,044,301


Worthing
152,338
68,600
220,938


Totals
15,361,432
6,734,045
22,095,477


3. Midlands Region





Birmingham Bradford Street
320,370
130,510
450,881


Birmingham Edgbaston
598,925
255,223
854,147


Birmingham Erdington
558,105
243,468
801,573


Birmingham Handsworth
770,837
319,141
1,089,978


Birmingham Ladywood
460,311
196,366
656,677


Birmingham Northfield
522,226
219,897
742,124

Loans
Grants
Total


Birmingham Perry Barr
386,241
157,206
543,447


Birmingham Ravenshurst
281,772
130,204
411,975


Birmingham South Yardley
526,576
226,042
752,619


Birmingham Sparkhill
217,807
92,197
310,004


Birmingham Washwood Heath
476,779
200,111
676,890


Boston
121,624
53,006
174,631


Burton on Trent
120,875
53,787
174,663


Cannock
206,560
83,324
289,883


Chesterfield
394,692
168,124
562,816


Corby
183,483
77,647
261,130


Coventry East
708,200
288,114
996,314


Coventry West
466,926
189,889
656,815


Derby Becket Street
223,321
100,276
323,597


Derby Heritage Gate
133,854
58,280
192,134


Derby London Road
322,844
135,672
458,517


Dudley North
454,371
185,705
640,076


Dudley South
206,145
92,016
298,161


Grantham
119,829
49,610
169,439


Hereford
205,712
93,538
299,249


Ilkeston
201,578
86,709
288,286


Kidderminster
242,695
98,136
340,831


Leamington
194,228
86,954
281,182


Leicester Burleys Way
235,126
102,735
337,860


Leicester Lower Hill Street
357,728
152,658
510,386


Leicester Norton Street
408,438
177,152
585,590


Leicester Yeoman Street
575,257
249,696
824,953


Lichfield
315,354
128,305
443,659


Lincoln Newland
317,210
137,289
454,499


Lincoln Orchard Street
367,347
170,103
537,451


Loughborough
173,927
75,223
249,150


Mansfield
368,727
159,906
528,634


Newcastle (Staffs)
241,422
99,542
340,964


Northampton
353,813
155,376
509,189


Nottingham Castle Gate
327,027
139,345
466,371


Nottingham David Lane
369,118
157,536
526.654


Nottingham Shakespeare Street
481,403
204,264
685,667


Nottingham Station Street
367,211
160,323
527,534


Nuneaton
272,889
110,862
383,751


Redditch
186,886
77,378
264,265


Rugby
114,732
51,024
165,756


Shrewsbury
295,080
127,783
422,863


Skegness
88,564
39,180
127,745


Smethwick
500,587
207,507
708,094


Stafford
128,752
56,649
185,401


Stoke North
404,010
177,656
581,666


Stoke South
237,625
110,928
348,553


Sutton-in-Ashfield
183,187
80,047
263,234


Telford
445,432
191,335
636,766


Walsall East
330,676
134,490
465,166


Walsall West
445,097
198,232
643,329


Wellingborough
298,713
136,920
435,633


West Bromwich
559,297
239,122
798,419


Wolverhampton North
713,287
296,127
1,009,414


Wolverhampton South
579,231
249,684
828,914


Worcester
278,947
133,726
412,674


Worksop
237,560
99,684
337,244


Totals
21,186,545
9,058,942
30,245,487


4. North East Region





Ashington
221,427
94,749
316,175


Barnsley East
602,431
251,189
853,620


Barnsley West
355,031
145,756
500,787


Berwick-On-Tweed
26,112
12,023
38,134


Bishop Auckland
381,643
158,242
539,885


Blyth
217,724
93,681
311,404


Bradford East
442,986
196,697
639,683


Bradford South
397,200
161,282
558,482


Bradford West
443,796
186,072
629,867


Bridlington
109,409
52,436
161,845


Castleford
190,138
77,631
267,769


Chester-Le-Street
202,581
85,079
287,660

Loans
Grants
Total


Darlington
449,667
188,278
637,944


Dewsbury
299,865
127,316
427,179


Doncaster East
352,879
143,325
496,204


Doncaster West
543,032
231,410
774,442


Durham
158,232
66,319
224,551


Eston
291,568
113,030
404,597


Gateshead
593,458
241,873
835,331


Goole
115,095
52,322
167,417


Grimsby
542,123
219,244
761,367


Halifax
449,551
197,962
647,512


Harrogate
145,803
64,113
209,916


Hartlepool
338,628
134,655
473,282


Hemsworth
153,033
69,354
222,387


Hexham
50,085
21,885
71,970


Houghton Le Spring
161,336
66,348
227,634


Huddersfield
358,945
154,968
513,913


Hull East
671,197
295,477
966,674


Hull West
558,973
251,564
810,536


Jarrow
325,384
138,204
463,588


Keighley
195,704
84,032
279,736


Leeds East
591,480
246,151
837,632


Leeds North
699,290
299,660
998,950


Leeds North West
362,307
166,967
529.274


Leeds South
243,725
105,300
349.024


Leeds West
326,381
142,116
468.498


Middlesbrough
896,332
354,181
1,250.513


Newcastle East
430,341
174,752
605,093


Newcastle St. James
502,248
207,770
710,018


Newcastle West
417,995
170,806
588,801


North Shields
336,436
145,451
481,887


Northallerton
84,243
37,599
121,841


Peterlee
202,186
87,199
289,385


Pontefract
191,449
81,057
272,507


Redcar
296,301
138,058
434,359


Rotherham North
167,787
71,922
239,709


Rotherham South
537,689
230,351
768,040


Scarborough
161,228
67,263
228,492


Scunthorpe
370,961
153,256
524,217


Seaham
77,923
34,894
112,817


Sheffield North East
974,273
411,432
1,385,705


Sheffield North West
723,208
303,988
1,027,196


Sheffield South East
474,642
196,972
671,614


Sheffield South West
624,974
274,772
899,745


Skipton
30,337
13,861
44,199


South Shields
433,545
183,063
616,607


Stanley
308,225
126,013
434,237


Stockton
634,110
263,453
897,562


Sunderland North
851,567
338,682
1,190,249


Sunderland South
533,100
212,467
^45,567


Wakefield
324,752
142,422
467,174


Wallsend
273,606
115,442
389,047


Wath-On-Dearne
336,146
134,286
470,432


York
299,802
133,022
432,824


TOTALS
24,063,620
10,141,138
34,204,758


5. North West Region





Accrington
196,613
88,540
285,154


Ashton-Under-Lyne
262,459
117,239
379,698


Barrow in Furness
156,293
73,195
229,488


Birkenhead North
640,278
265,117
905,395


Birkenhead South
301,152
124,202
425,354


Blackburn
356,591
152,858
509,449


Bolton
598,568
246,144
844,712


Bootle
533,794
209,972
743,766


Burnley
386,276
172,747
559,023


Bury
347,978
155,287
503,265


Buxton
25,170
11,528
36,698


Carlisle
182,115
82,342
264,456


Chester
236,354
98,035
334,389


Crewe
240,214
104,319
344,533


Crosby
393,660
162,090
555,750


Ellesmere Port
225,953
89,094
315,047


Failsworth
415,759
176,443
592,202


Farnworth
214,098
95,433
309,531


Fylde North
297,865
130,674
428,539


Fylde South
144,366
65,546
209,912.


Huyton
666,622
264,259
930,881

Loans
Grants
Total


Hyde
333,371
134,023
467,394


Kendal
33,667
14,892
48,559


Kirkby
684,935
273,433
958,368


Lancaster
344,134
139,283
483,417


Leigh
267,583
112,642
380,225


Liverpool Belle Vale
384,710
157,853
542,563


Liverpool Breckfield
631,306
253,475
884,782


Liverpool City
396,197
162,917
559,113


Liverpool Edge Hill
668,835
258,026
926,861


Liverpool Garston
330,728
131,583
462,311


Liverpool Norris Green
300,273
120,474
420,746


Liverpool Toxteth
799,340
331,820
1,131,160


Liverpool West Derby
173,159
72,764
245,923


Macclesfield
88,927
40,220
129,147


Manchester Central
204,566
89,425
293,992


Manchester Cheetham
380,254
163,217
543,471


Manchester Chorlton
353,314
172,218
525,532


Manchester Longsight
450,612
191,988
642,600


Manchester Openshaw
331,198
142,854
474,052


Manchester Rusholme
559,432
244,743
804,175


Manchester Wythenshawe
456,196
192,343
648,539


Middleton
249,628
103,342
352,971


Northwich
240,913
100,537
341,450


Oldham
433,409
191,246
624,655


Penrith
25,264
11,831
37,095


Preston North
330,911
126,254
457,165


Preston South
235,863
102,480
338,343


Rochdale
333,564
140,740
474,304


Rossendale
119,022
52,248
171,270


Sale
317,676
136,578
454,254


Salford North
381,113
167,969
549,082


Salford South
251,327
106,731
358,058


Skelmersdale
384,801
162,618
547,419


Southport
120,735
52,833
173,568


St. Helens
574,468
232,334
806,802


Stockport North
336,623
137,503
474,126


Stockport South
322,694
138,202
460,896


Wallasey
418,170
169,337
587,507


Warrington
454,245
186,157
640,401


Whitehaven
109,546
45,323
154,869


Widnes
669,999
278,390
948,389


Wigan
540,889
237,170
778,059


Wilmslow
59,321
27,908
87,229


Workington
155,151
70,633
225,784


Totals
22,060,244
9,263,618
31,323,862


6. Scotland Region





Aberdeen North
324,995
136,664
461,658


Aberdeen South
288,795
125,366
414,161


Airdrie
659,396
269,305
928,701


Arbroath
156,677
71,030
227,707


Ayr
743,508
301,989
1,045,498


Bathgate
524,997
223,124
748,121


Bellshill
489,243
193,990
683,233


Campbeltown
39,008
16,540
55,548


Clydebank
479,332
193,619
672,951


Coatbridge
475,741
192,395
668,136


Cowdenbeath
149,213
69,269
218,482


Cumbernauld
474,682
211,784
686,466


Dumbarton
461,624
194,681
656,305


Dumfries
224,927
98,655
323,582


Dundee East
452,227
188,946
641,172


Dundee West
372,589
154,368
526,958


Dunfermline
223,093
96,750
319,843


East Kilbride
277,067
121,959
399,026


Edinburgh City
518,955
222,994
741,949


Edinburgh East
471,904
202,701
674,604


Edinburgh North
411,233
167,807
579,039


Edinburgh South
432,974
179,642
612,616


Edinburgh West
442,024
182,844
624,869


Elgin
164,853
69,520
234,373


Falkirk
616,125
252,999
869,124


Fort William
75,106
33,202
108,308


Galashiels
158,789
75,861
234,600


Glasgow Anniesland
684,448
284,249
968,698


Glasgow Bridgeton
456,354
203,051
659,405

Loans
Grants
Total


Glasgow City
565,884
250,765
816,650


Glasgow Craigton
844,419
347,990
1,192,409


Glasgow Cranstonhill
98,759
37,207
135,965


Glasgow Laurieston
847,613
357,390
1,205,003


Glasgow Maryhill
713,217
299,598
1,012,815


Glasgow Parkhead
892,547
368,309
1,260,856


Glasgow Partick
398,764
166,606
565,371


Glasgow Provan
1,035,477
416,294
1,451,772


Glasgow Rutherglen
1,079,128
429,846
1,508,974


Glasgow South Side
865,646
355,586
1,221,231


Glasgow Springburn
927,660
380,519
1,308,179


Greenock
654,289
265,969
920,258


Hamilton
1,063,192
447,633
1,510,824


Inverness
326,136
149,629
475,765


Irvine
746,994
321,952
1,068,946


Johnstone
331,768
136,878
468,646


Kilmarnock
403,821
166,720
570,541


Kirkcaldy
424,204
172,952
597,156


Lerwick
22,216
9,455
31,671


Leven
156,076
63,128
219,203


Motherwell
653,179
263,883
917,062


Oban
49,263
21,678
70,941


Paisley
823,936
325,259
1,149,195


Perth
203,370
84,464
287,833


Peterhead
136,006
60,290
196,296


Port Glasgow
406,643
165,995
572,637


Stirling
399,921
160,146
560,067


Stornoway
72,129
32,710
104,840


Stranraer
90,519
39,199
129,718


Wick
91,977
41,362
133,339


Totals
26,574,580
11,074,717
37,649,297


7. Wales and South West Region


Aberdare
281,323
123,789
405,112


Abertillery
119,094
49,186
168,280


Aberystwyth
94,095
41,905
135,999


Ammanford (Group)
81,360
38,263
119,623


Anglesey
183,796
76,180
259,976


Bargeoed
228,385
92,738
321,123


Barnstaple
169,204
78,802
248,006


Barry
195,243
80,865
276,108


Bath
190,540
83,703
274,243


Blackwood
141,463
57,868
199,331


Bournemouth
277,466
120,995
398,461


Bridgend
273,323
118,509
391,833


Bridgwater
138,064
54,339
192,403


Bristol Central
264,123
116,999
381,122


Bristol East
298,880
132,396
431,276


Bristol Horfield
166,519
70,157
236,676


Bristol South
390,871
161,817
552,689


Bristol West
122,689
53,334
176,023


Caernarfon
132,703
53,382
186,085


Caerphilly
329,926
139,599
469,526


Cardiff Central
299,032
125,895
424,927


Cardiff East
526,381
213,772
740,153


Cardiff West
382,057
164,352
546,410


Carmarthen
79,550
32,716
112,266


Cheltenham
191,199
81,329
272,528


Chippenham
75,112
35,553
110,664


Colwyn Bay
172,355
73,246
245,601


Cwmbran (Group)
333,846
140,110
473,958


Deeside
140,614
61,423
202,037


Devonport
345,648
149,804
495,452


Ebbw Vale (Group)
209,720
84,673
294,394


Exeter
425,041
188,942
613,983


Gloucester
364,755
158,551
523,306


Haverfordwest
184,884
73,398
258,282


Launceston
86,634
37,376
124,010


Llanelli
238,119
95,571
335,690


Merthyr Tydfil
267,040
105,445
372,485


Morriston
307,767
135,427
443,194


Neath
161,257
67,077
228,333


Newport (Gwent)
662,077
278,899
940,975


Newtown (Group)
96,349
42,481
138,829


Pembroke Dock
119,492
50,949
170,441


Penzance
158,004
63,956
221,959


Plymouth
401,787
174,891
576,678

Loans
Grants
Total


Pontypridd
228,791
103,227
332,018


Poole
223,173
97,670
320,843


Port Talbot
177,096
74,259
251,355


Porth
133,229
54,975
188,204


Porthmadog-Dolgellau
78,123
32,779
110,903


Rhondda West
229,361
92,610
321,970


Rhyl
262,960
115,581
378,541


Salisbury
117,921
51,043
168,964


St. Austell
196,298
82,422
278,720


Stroud
113,271
48,652
161,923


Swansea
587,165
268,015
855,181


Swindon
240,052
102,929
342,981


Taunton
186,496
83,497
269,993


Torbay
388,969
171,024
559,993


Trowbridge
87,608
39,339
126,946


Truro
235,100
102,242
337,341


Weston-Super-Mare
138,411
59,489
197,901


Weymouth
128,919
57,336
186,255


Wrexham (Group)
349,058
148,016
497,074


Yeovil
101,032
48,067
149,099


Totals
14,510,822
6,215,834
20,726,656

Note: The totals may not sum due to rounding.

Centenarians

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) males and (b) females according to national insurance records have become centenarians in each of the past five years, and in the same period between 1965 and 1969; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: I regret that the precise information requested is not available, but over the past five years there has been a significant increase in the number of people aged 100. The number of women has increased from 1,150 to 1,550 and the number of men has more than doubled from 100 to 210. Today is the 100th birthday of four people and the 106th birthday of another, and one person, Brigadier Mrs. Mary Fewster of the Salvation Army, is celebrating her 111th birthday today. I offer them all my warmest congratulations and good wishes and I shall, with permission, publish a full breakdown of the figures in the Official Report.

Mr. Greenway: I echo those congratulations. Are not these figures yet another sign of the success of the Government's policies, and a clear confirmation of which is the stronger sex? What does the trend of those figures imply for male members of the Cabinet who are hoping to succeed?

Mr. Scott: I shall steer clear of the latter point. Yes, I am encouraged by the fact that men are improving their achievement of this target at a more rapid rate than women. I understand that my hon. Friend runs a club in his constitutency for centenarians. I hope that one day he may qualify for membership.

Mr. Eastham: Does not this question reinforce the fact that as more people are living longer, there is a greater strain on the NHS? Does not the great number of old people who have been added to the figures justify the Labour party's case for spending more on the NHS?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The shift in the demographic pattern in our society will mean more old people, and more old frail people. That has

implications for the Health Service, the social security system and other matters. All these are being considered well in advance by the Government.

Mr. Holt: In his list, my hon. Friend omitted Britain's oldest person, who lives in my constituency. The House will be pleased to know that she is still living on her own, and she answered the phone this morning when we rang t o find out how she was. She is now well on her way to her 112th birthday.

Mr. Scott: I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend.

Following is the information:
The number of people who became centenarians in each of the last five years is not available. The number of men and women aged 100 years as at 31 March in each of the last five years is as follows:



1984
1985
1986
1 1987
1988


Males
100
170
170
200
210


Females
1,150
1,250
1,230
1,420
1,550


Corresponding figures for 1965 to 1969 are not available as records did not begin until 1983.


1 30 September 1987.

Social Security Payments

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to introduce amendments into the regulations governing social security payments in order to restore transitional protection to those who now lose it due to such changes in their circumstances as a stay in hospital.

Mr. Scott: No, Sir. I would point out to the hon. Member that the new income support rules for single people who go into hospital are far more generous than the old. Income support for these people now remains unchanged for the first six weeks after admission, by which time about 94 per cent. of people are discharged from hospital. Supplementary benefit used to be reduced from the first week of admission.

Mr. Michael: Does not the Minister's reply amount to a confession that the Government's promise of transitional protection was not worth the paper on which it was written? Does the Minister realise that many people are losing out through having to go into hospital and through many other changes in their lives that are irrelevant to their circumstances? What does he have to say to the lady who discovered that her husband's death triggered a cut in the payments that were meant to assist with her own health? Will he confess that the Government have tried to con the poor?

Mr. Scott: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman listened to my main answer. Perhaps he was too busy preparing his supplementary question when I was delivering it. Transitional protection will cost about £200 million in its first year. It has been of significant help to many people.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware that the appalling examples of those who have lost transitional protection over the past few months would all have been included in the figure which he used repeatedly last April? He told us then that 88 per cent. would be no worse off at the point of change. Does not that which has happened


since then expose how bogus that figure always was? Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the parallel provision for housing benefit, which effectively ceases after six weeks in hospital? There are many frail and elderly patients who find after a spell in hospital that they have arrears amounting to hundreds of pounds? That cannot be justified, and I am even prepared to believe that it cannot have been intended. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to change this vindictive rule before it causes any more distress?

Mr. Scott: I do not agree for one moment with the hon. Gentleman's description of the system. The essence of transitional protection is that it is eroded after time. It is right that we introduced the protection in April 1988 to ensure that no one faced a cliff-edge drop in cash terms. As I said earlier, over 94 per cent. of patients are discharged from hospital within six weeks. We are monitoring the effect on the balance.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister note that many come off transitional protection for short-term employment reasons? My constituency is an example of an area where much of the employment is seasonal and short-term by definition, and those who are engaged in it lose transitional protection. I cannot believe that that was intended as in many instances the effect of the loss of transitional protection is severe. I ask the Minister to review the scheme because the issue goes much wider than the strict definition of the question. There are many who are losing a great deal.

Mr. Scott: We have made concessions for some who are in vulnerable groups. We are monitoring the effect of the present scheme.

Income Support

Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that the new income support scheme is easier to operate than supplementary benefit.

Mr. Moore: Claims for income support are being processed more quickly and accurately than claims for supplementary benefit. Error rates are down from 12 per cent. to 8 per cent. and will fall further. Claims are being processed in five days as opposed to as many as 11, and we shall improve further. People find the scheme easier to understand and the rate of successful claims has increased from 74 per cent. to 80 per cent.

Mr. Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging remarks, which confirm the impression which I have gained from my local office. What is the average clearance rate under the new scheme compared with that under the old? I invite my right hon. Friend to say more about whether applicants are finding it an easier scheme to use than the previous one.

Mr. Moore: There has been a reduction from the worst rate of about 11 days, which we saw in the latter part of 1987. The average number of days last year was seven, and we are now down to five. Our customers are finding the scheme a great deal easier to use, and the staff are finding it enormously simpler. We should all be pleased to know that as a result the success rate has increased.

Mr. Wareing: How is the new system helping people like Mr. Wyatt, a constituent of mine, who was asked at

the Department of Employment office how much he expected to receive if he was lucky enough to get a job? When Mr. Wyatt answered £120 a week, my 58-year-old constituent found that his income support was stopped. It was resumed only a few weeks later and the payments were reduced by £6 per week. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the way in which people like my constituent are discriminated against?

Mr. Moore: I have learnt how important and wise it is to get all the details about individual cases before trying to comment on any particular one. The new income support, in comparison with the old supplementary benefit, has not only made the system simpler, but has improved turnround and the way in which people get their claims settled. I should have thought that all hon. Members would regard that as important, because nearly 4·5 million people are on our live income support load. The new system has reduced the error rate and improved the success rate. I should have thought that all hon. Members would welcome that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that one of the problems with the old system continues with the present system? There is a tendency among some officers to assure constituents, including some of mine, that a giro is in the post when they inquire about benefit. However, the inquirer finds, after several days' wait and many complaints to the Post Office, that the giro is not in the post. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that officers tell people that a giro is in the post only when they have a document before them which makes it clear that the giro is in the post? That would stop them misleading people.

Mr. Moore: I will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has made because I have experience of similar cases in my constituency which is an urban area. Overall, the system is working infinitely better than the old, highly complex and very difficult supplementary benefit system.

Fraud

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken to cut down on social security fraud.

Mr. Moore: Since this Government took office, we have nearly doubled the number of staff on anit-fraud work to over 3,300. Cheats are nothing more than spongers on the rest of us and my Department has stepped up its drive against claimants who cheat. Resources are being used more efficiently. Investigations into high-risk areas are producing good results. More people are being found out. As a result, this year we shall produce the best savings ever, around £250 million—up from £100 million five years ago, but still only one eighth of what the Inland Revenue recovered last year through its compliance work.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on that not just from Conservative Members, but from people who genuinely claim social security and those on modest incomes who pay taxes towards the people who are cheating the system? Will he assure the House that, when people are found to be defrauding the system, they will be prosecuted and that the widest possible publicity is given to that to deter others from taking that line?

Mr. Moore: Of course I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. No hon. Member can endorse cheating. However, I should stress that. this Government are pursuing this problem sensibly, unlike the Labour Government who believed in a high prosecution policy, did not collect figures for fraud and saw no reason to account for or demonstrate value for money. Last year, 7,231 people were prosecuted whereas during the last full year of the Labour Government's term of office, 21,913 people were prosecuted. That is a sign of the less-than-humane pursuit of a very serious problem.

Mr. Redmond: Does the Minister agree that if claimants at the Department of Social Security are not informed of their due rights, that can also be classed as fraud? Will he restate to DSS officers throughout the country that they are there to help, advise and guide people who make rightful claims and that the duty rests with the DHS to assist those people or they will lose benefit, which would be fraud by the state?

Mr. Moore: There is a duty on the individual and I also fully accept that there is a duty on my offices and staff. In the "Business of Service" report which I am seeking to implement, I strongly endorse not necessarily the hon. Gentleman's words, but ways in which I encourage my staff to treat and serve their customers so that their entitlement to benefit is fully and well understood.

Mr. David Nicholson: While the House welcomes my right hon. Friend's administrative measures to reduce fraud, is he aware that there is a widespread welcome in the country for the legislative measures he is taking—in particular, the Social Security Bill, which is proceeding upstairs? It is unacceptable that in large areas of the country where there is work, people are able successively to refuse jobs and continue living on benefit.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I read with continued interest, and sometimes with amazement, the Hansard reports of the proceedings of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of the Opposition in the Committee on the Social Security Bill and I cannot begin to understand how an Opposition can be so far removed from the basic attitudes, beliefs and views held by the majority of our people—with whom my hon. Friend is so closely connected.

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to amend the relevant legislation in order to restore the age limit for widows' pensions to 40 years.

Mr. Scott: No, Sir.

Mr. Banks: It did not take the Minister very long to come up with that reply, and I am very disappointed with it. Is he aware that about 2,000 women were widowed between September 1987 and April 1988, and therefore fell foul, retroactively, of the changes made in the social security provisions? All those widows will lose about £32,000 each. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going around bragging, at every dinner to which he can get an invitation, that the country's coffers are overflowing, what justification is there for him to deprive the country's bereaved of what is justifiably theirs? If the Minister will

not reconsider his terse reply, will he at least drop the mean-spirited approach that the Government adopt towards widows whose cases have been upheld by the appeal tribunal? The Government are trying to reverse such decisions? That is mean-spirited, and the Minister should have a heart.

Mr. Scott: An important case is shortly to go before the social security commissioner and it would be unwise of me to comment on it. The whole thrust of the policy is to focus on older widows and widows with children. About 55,000 of them benefited as a result of our reforming the system.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it does no service to younger widows to exempt them from the necessity of earning a living? Nothing can be better for their morale than to get out and come to grips with life again.

Mr. Scott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point that widows should be encouraged back into employment. Also, I am advised that about 90 per cent. of widows aged between 40 and 44 remarry.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister accept that it may be difficult for many widows to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) if they live in constituencies such as Glasgow, Maryhill where the official unemployment rate is 22 per cent.? Furthermore, is it not insulting to tell widows that their only hope, if they cannot find work, is that they had better find themselves husbands? How would the Minister like to be told, in similar circumstances, that he had better find himself a wife?

Mr. Scott: I am saying that we are helping older widows and widows with dependent children. It is right to give them our highest priority. It is worth reminding the House yet again that about 55,000 widows benefited as a result of our reforms.

Mr. McCrindle: Was not the change made on the supposition that it should be easier for younger widows to obtain employment? That must still apply. However, will my hon. Friend note that a number of employers continue discriminating against women because they are—to use their word, not mine—"older"? Will my hon. Friend take the initiative in persuading employers that, particularly as the number of teenagers coming on to the labour market falls, older women represent a particularly important source of future employees, and that age discrimination is not acceptable?

Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend. Any employer taking such an attitude is being very short-sighted. As we get into an increasingly tight employment situation, with a reduction in the number of young people coming on to the labour market, wise employers will be looking throughout the age range for skills and experience.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister reconsider his appalling answer in the light of the experience of Mrs. Valerie Jones of Cwmlas Llanbradach? Her husband died tragically of cancer a year ago, 35 days before her 45th birthday and two months before this law came into effect. Her appeal was upheld by the social security tribunal, and the Government are appealing against that decision.
The DSS and the Government believe that Mrs. Jones should go out to work. Tragically, she herself is now


suffering from cancer. She is one of the millions of victims of the Government, who have pursued and cheated people relentlessly under their social security legislation. In pursuing this woman to appeal to save a few pennies, the Government stand condemned 2,000 times over of mean, pitiless theft of the widow's mite.

Mr. Scott: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been carried away by his oratory. His description of the system is a travesty of the truth. As I have said, an important case—that of Mrs. Doreen Whitbread—is going to the social security commissioner soon: an early hearing is being arranged. I think that we should await that decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

British Theatre Association

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the number of texts in the British Theatre Association library.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I am advised by the British Theatre Association that it has nearly 300,000 texts in its library. I attach importance to ways being found of preserving public access to this collection. The House may like to know that discussions are taking place between the BTA, the British library and the Victoria and Albert Museum, and I understand that the BTA is actively exploring possible options.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept, then, that the library is the definitive theatre library, used by theatre companies and academics throughout the world? Does he accept that its closure would be a major loss to the country's theatres? Regardless of whatever talks may be going on, may I ask the Minister to guarantee that the Government will find the mere £150,000 that the library needs to continue to function?

Mr. Luce: I certainly accept what the hon. Lady says about the importance of the collection to the world of drama. I know that it is a substantial collection, and that is why I have called the parties together—in particular the British library, which has considerable expertise at its disposal and has already offered the association a management consultancy advisory service free of charge, and the Victoria and Albert, which has a theatre museum—to give their advice. I am keen to find a viable solution based on value for money and the right location, and I am doing what I can with the parties concerned to facilitate that.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are extremely concerned about the future of this irreplaceable institution, and place great hopes in his determination to ensure that a solution is found to enable it to go on providing services to both the theatre and the general public?

Mr. Luce: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and I am sure that he is right in stressing the importance of the collection to the drama world. I am also sure that it is right to look at every option, and to call on the expertise of the British library and other organisations to seek the best way of solving the problem. I shall continue to take a close interest.

Mr. Sheldon: I think that the whole House will accept the right hon. Gentleman's interest, but will he accept that that it is not only advice that is wanted? What we need now is some money, and not a great deal. This is an invaluable collection and it must be preserved.

Mr. Luce: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, about 6·5 per cent. of total resources was provided by the public sector in the last financial year. I think it right at this stage to consider what is the most viable proposition for the future of the collection. I entirely accept that it is an important collection which ought to be accessible to the drama world; my obligation is to see what can be done to find the most viable answer, and I think that the way in which we are now proceeding is the right way at this stage.

Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action that he has already taken is warmly welcomed? The library must be kept together, because its 300,000 volumes comprise a resource that commands respect and admiration throughout the world.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he says is absolutely right. Again I stress that it is important to find a solution that is based on the best value for money and on the most viable proposition that we can find.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not the case, as I believe the Minister knows, that Victoria and Albert museum and British library officials met on the Friday before last and expressed their concern and willingness to help but that they made it clear to the Minister that without money from him they were unable to do anything? The Minister's interest is welcome, but it is meaningless unless he provides some money. He is responsible for a national resource; his is the responsibility to fund it. Will he now stop wringing his hands and start providing money to save this institution, if he believes that it is worth saving?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I am wringing my hands is far from the truth. Neither the British library nor the V and A has come to me and said that it is essential that at this stage additional public money is provided. They are trying to find the most viable answer to the problem, and that is the right way to proceed. The Government are strongly committed to the library system. We have injected an additional £300 million of taxpayer's money into the construction of the new British library. Expenditure on public libraries, in real terms, in the last two years has increased by 9 per cent. There is no lack of commitment by the Government to the library system. However, it is right to seek a viable alternative solution for the library. That is what I am doing with all the expertise at my disposal.

Mr. Maclennan: Although I recognise that talks with the British library make sense, the Minister is conveying the impression that he is acquiescing in the write-off of the British Theatre Association, which has other functions than the guarding of library resources. They include valuable national advice and courses that are not provided by any other national institution. Why is the Minister not illustrating his concern in a more practical way?

Mr. Luce: The representations that have been made to me have been principally concerned with the importance of this collection, which is made up of 300,000 texts and other reference sources. I accept that it is important, and


it is right that I should be concerned about its importance. I believe that we must look at every option to ensure that we get the best value for money in the right location and in the right circumstances.

Business Sponsorship

Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress of the business sponsoring incentive scheme.

Mr. Luce: New sponsorship under the scheme continues to increase. It has brought over 900 businesses into arts sponsorship since 1984, but there is still room for growth. I therefore propose to allow individual arts organisations to be eligible for up to two awards next year, instead of one as at present, up to the maximum of £25,000. This will help smaller arts organisations and encourage more businesses to support the arts.

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend knows that I warmly welcome the progress of this excellent scheme. Will he tell me what progress had been made in the north of England, as he knows that the regions derive particular benefit from the scheme?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has shown consistent support for the business sponsoring incentive scheme, which has brought, overall, an additional £23 million of extra money to the arts since its inception. There have been a number of sponsorships in the north-western area. For example, there have been recent awards to the Northern chamber orchestra, the Manchester museum, the Buxton arts festival and the Guildhall at Preston. Those are just some examples which demonstrate how widespread is the business sponsorship incentive scheme.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise how important it is to ensure that the regions and sub-regional centres get an even bigger share of the money that is available from the scheme? Many centres, such as Burnley, which makes excellent provision for the arts and the theatre as a sub-regional centre, will be unable to maintain that provision, as a result of the poll tax legislation, unless it receives more support from this type of scheme.

Mr. Luce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the scheme should be spread widely throughout the nation. I am glad that at least 70 per cent. of all the resources that have been allocated to the scheme have been for projects outside London. That is important. Sponsorship in Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow, has been at a faster rate than in any other area. The evidence suggests that the scheme is becoming widespread. I urge sponsors with headquarters in London to ensure that adequate attention is given to the recommendations of their regional managers.

Arts Funding (Wilding Review)

Mr. Stern: To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the obligations and time scale for the Wilding review of arts funding.

Mr. Luce: As I announced on 8 December, I have invited Mr. Richard Wilding to conduct a review into the structure and organisation for support of the arts in

England. He will consult the parties concerned and report to me by 31 October 1989. I shall send a copy of the press notice to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he give us some idea of the matters of current concern that have necessitated this wide-ranging review?

Mr. Luce: There is no doubt that, since the inception of the Arts Council of Great Britain after the second world war, and the starting of the regional arts associations, there has, in recent years, been a substantial shift of resources to regional arts. They now handle about £30 million of resources. I am concerned to ensure, with all the changes that have taken place, that there is coherence in the funding system and proper accountability to Parliament and me, through the Arts Council of Great Britain, for the use of taxpayers' money. There is no suggestion that funds are not being properly used now. I also want to ensure proper and improved structures and procedures for channelling the money, the large majority of which should go to the performing arts.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Secondments

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans for the secondment of civil servants from other civil services within the European Economic Community.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Apart from reciprocal training arrangements, for a number of years there have been formal bilateral arrangements which provide for a small number of secondments between the United Kingdom Civil Service and the civil services of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Republic of Ireland. Exchanges also take place outside the scope of the formal arrangements.

Mr. Barnes: Is it not a pity that there are not more arrangements for secondment, and moving in and out of Europe, of civil servants? The Civil Service in this country faces many problems. There is tremendous pressure from the Government to make civil servants operate as political hacks, rather than to maintain their former neutrality. The movement of civil servants from other countries in and out of this country on short-term secondments, might help to re-establish the neutrality of the Civil Service. I should prefer a "Yes Minister" approach to be more prevalent than the current "Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, Minister."

Mr. Luce: Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight on the last part of his question. There is no shadow of doubt that the Civil Service today is as impartial and professional as ever. That conclusion was reached by the all-party Select Committee in 1988. To suggest that civil servants are political hacks is a gross misrepresentation of the job that they are trying to do. The level of exchanges on a bilateral basis, particularly of secondments—the hon. Gentleman is right—is fairly low. It is difficult to achieve, but exchanges between groups of civil servants within and between countries is happening on a bigger and bigger scale. The courses provided on a European scale at the Civil Service college to prepare for 1992 are becoming stronger and stronger.

Mr. Gow: Do not the British people and the British civil servants bear sufficient burdens already without adding to them by introducing civil servants from the republics of Greece and Portugal who would merely add to the confusion that already exists?

Mr. Luce: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is not particularly easy to facilitate exchanges on the basis of secondments that last for several months. Clear criteria are laid down for entry into the Civil Service, which impose strict controls. The best way to proceed if we want better knowledge of how different systems work, is to have exchanges of delegations. That occurs from time to time within the Civil Service.

Mr. Winnick: Are there any plans to second, perhaps for a year or more, Mr. Bernard Ingham to another EC country?

Mr. Luce: Mr. Bernard Ingham is so valuable here that no such proposal exists.

Training

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what training is given to civil servants who deal directly with the public.

Mr. Luce: The next steps initiative gives added emphasis to the training Departments already provide in the delivery of services to the public. In addition, the Civil Service college has introduced a new course on service delivery.

Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any steps taken to improve the Civil Service's service to the public are to be welcomed? Will he say what proportion of training for such civil servants is given by the private sector, particularly based on the example of major retailers?

Mr. Luce: A large proportion of training for the Civil Service is provided by the private sector. Of course, there are a whole variety of ways in which training can be provided in the Civil Service. Some of it is done by Departments themselves. The Civil Service college provides 5 per cent. of the training, with special emphasis on senior civil servants. I am setting aside an additional £1 million this coming year for challenge funding training to improve still further the standard of management in the senior echelons of the Civil Service, in preparation for the creation of the agencies.

"Service to the Public" (Report)

Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what were the conclusions of the report "Service to the Public"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: The "Service to the Public" occasional paper is the result of a management study by a team of my officials and has been published to stimulate debate on this import subject, to which I attach great importance. Part I sets out the team's views on the essential elements of a service to the public strategy; part II provides examples of good practice. I am placing copies in the Library of the House, and the paper is on sale to the public through Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Mr. Cran: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the public will benefit by this initiative, and what it is actually going to mean for civil servants?

Mr. Luce: The important thing, is that, about all else, civil servants are anxious to ensure that the best possible service is provided to the public. The creation of agencies within the Civil Service is another way of strengthening the quality of service to the public, because performance targets and performance measurements will be provided. But one of the purposes of the paper is to highlight the best practices in the Civil Service, particularly in respect of such things as access by telephone, communications, the use of plain English, giving personal names, and ensuring that reception areas are adequate. All these and other things are being done in the Civil Service to make sure that the quality of service to the public is as good as possible.

Dr. Marek: Can the Minister confirm the existence of the Privatisation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1990, as revealed by Touche Ross to the staff at the national engineering laboratory, and can he, further, confirm that the purpose of the Bill is to strip employees and civil servants of their rights.? How can the Minister get the best possible service from civil servants for the public and say that he wants that, and, at the same time, plot with his right hon. and hon. Friends to deprive loyal civil servants of their jobs and pensions? The moral character of Britain is changing for the worse, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said yesterday, but it is led by an immoral Government. When is he going to stand up for morality?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman appears actually to believe what he reads in an article in a newspaper. His imagination appears to be running rather wild—rather unusually so. All I can say is that his question appears to be one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Our policy on privatisation remains absolutely consistent: if we think that certain operations within the Civil Service would be better performed, with a better service to the public, by privatisation we will take that course. Otherwise, in terms of other services to the public, we regard agencies as a very good way of moving forward and of providing a better service.

Mr. Butler: Sometimes it is very difficult to get through on the telephone to Government Departments. The passport office is particularly bad. Will my right hon. Friend expand on the improved access by telephone that he mentioned.?

Mr. Luce: The point about the passport office should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as my hon. Friend will no doubt do, but there are a number of experiments going on to improve telephone contact between various Departments and the public. For example, there is a freephone service in the Department of Social Security at Newcastle, and there is a telephone queuing system at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. There are a number of ways in which the system is being improved for the benefit of the public.

Civil Servants (Foreign Languages)

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are able to speak any language of the European Economic Community other than English.

Mr. Luce: More than half the staff in grades 1 to 3 are able to speak a second European language. Information on other grades is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Fisher: Is it perhaps the case that the Minister does not have figures for other grades because they are very poor and because, throughout the Civil Service, there is some complacency which is based on the idea that, if one shouts loud enough, foreigners will understand? Is it not a matter of courtesy that our civil servants should learn other languages? Would it not make good financial sense for the Government to invest in helping them to learn other languages?

Mr. Luce: I am not sure of the standard of foreign languages in the House. It is important that 50 per cent. of the top grades in the Civil Service speak another language. It is for each Department to say what proportion of its employees speak a foreign language. A range of courses is now available at the Civil Service college, at universities and through the diplomatic service which attempts to ensure that we are better prepared for 1992. Priority is being given to this matter.

"Service to the Public" (Report)

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how much money he expects to be spent in meeting the recommendations of the report "Service to the Public".

Mr. Luce: There are no formal recommendations in the "Service to the Public" occasional paper. The views expressed in it are those of the officials who undertook the management study. The resources devoted to service to the public are a matter for Ministers of individual Departments. The paper is about how best to improve services within a given level of resources or how most cost effectively to provide a specified level of service.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the courtesy shown by civil servants when dealing with hon. Members' problems and those of their constituents is second to none? It is not always so, however, when it comes to responding to the general public. Does my right hon. Friend agree that being a civil servant means providing a service and being civil? What can he do to improve the manner in which civil servants treat members of the general public?

Mr. Luce: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of what he mentions. There should be good relations between civil servants and the public. It is interesting to note that 95 per cent. of civil servants deal in some way with the provision of services, whether to the public or to specialist groups. A wide range of training courses is available to help civil servants achieve a good relationship with the public. We should be in no doubt that civil servants want to be able to provide a service—it provides much more job satisfaction. It is right to give priority to better training facilities.

Legionnaires' Disease

Mr. Greville Janner: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in central London.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): An outbreak of Legionnaires' disease has been identified in the central London area. Ten people are currently suspected of being associated with the incident. I am confident that it is being dealt with in the best possible way by all the appropriate authorities. Westminster city council is in the lead because it enforces the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in offices, shops and hotels in the area. The Health and Safety Executive is assisting the environmental health team at Westminster city council.
It is important to keep this outbreak in perspective. If employers follow the procedures set out by the HSE in its guidance material, the problem of Legionnaires' disease is a controllable one. This outbreak emphasises the importance of doing so.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that responsibility for ensuring compliance by employers with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in general, and their duties in respect of Legionnaires' disease in particular, rests with him because of his responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive?
Does the Minister know that the Select Committee on Employment has for several years been profoundly concerned at the increase in the number of incidents of Legionnaires' disease in various parts of the country, of which the most serious were in Stafford, where there were 101 cases and 28 deaths, at the BBC, where there were 58 cases and three deaths, and now at British Aerospace, where there are 36 confirmed cases and, happily, no deaths so far? Does he accept that the BBC case has not been dealt with properly by the courts and that the fine of £3,600 was derisory, disgraceful and utterly inadequate in dealing with what could have become a plague? Does he not understand that his Department has not provided facilities for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive properly to do their jobs in inspecting those air cooling towers which are causing these problems?
In the circumstances, while expressing sympathy to the sufferers and the hope that they will soon be well, may I ask him to reassure the House and the public that he is taking the matter seriously? Will he urge the courts to treat the causing of death in industry as a hugely serious matter that deserves appropriate penalties? Will he please tell the House in far more detail what is being done to contain the outbreak and to find people who may believe that they are suffering from pneumonia but in fact are suffering from Legionnaires' disease?

Mr. Cope: I shall endeavour to respond to all those questions from the hon. and learned Gentleman. First, I did my best to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that we are certainly taking the outbreak seriously. As for the BBC case, I do not think that I should comment today on individual decisions of the courts, but it is certainly very important that the courts consider the penalties for individual cases involving health and safety

very carefully, subject to the Acts which govern it and their statutory responsibilities. I am aware of the cases that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned and of the interest of the Select Committee, with which I know that he has been involved. Responsibility is governed by the allocation regulations of 1977, which were made under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974. They allocate responsibility for inspection between the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities. As I said in my original reply, the responsibility for shops, hotels and offices rests with the city council—in this case Westminster city council—as the environmental health authority. It is taking action and doing its best to isolate the incidents caused by the outbreak. It has appealed—and I reinforce that appeal—for any doctors who suspect cases of Legionnaires' disease to contact it at once so that they may be taken into account in the inquiry and so that it can do its best to discover the cause and treat those who, unfortunately, are subject to the disease.

Mr. John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend absolutely sure that the guidance notes which go out to the managers and engineers of the various establishments, hospitals, office blocks and others using air cooling tower systems are clear enough in the directions that are necessary to carry out procedures to check and test the water supply and then to carry out very quick biocide treatment to ensure that any Legionnella that is discovered is dealt with immediately?

Mr. Cope: The guidelines are very clear and we know of no incidence of Legionnaires' disease when the guidelines have been followed. A new leaflet was put out just a few days ago and has received some attention in the press. It is quite short, extremely clear, and gives good initial guidance. Obviously the full guidance is much more elaborate, but the initial guidance in the new leaflet is extremely helpful.

Mr. David Young: Will the Minister take on board the fact that we are dealing not with an isolated case, but that this is the third series of cases in a relatively short period stretching between London and Bolton? As various groups share responsibility, and as there has been a series of outbreaks, will the Minister consider introducing some co-ordination so that we can bring together all the lessons that have been learned by examining the cases that have been investigated and apply them when dealing with any others that may arise?

Mr. Cope: It is important that the different authorities with responsibility in different areas co-ordinate the information they gather. That is particularly important in an incident such as this, in which people from a wide area might be affected. The Health and Safety Executive does co-ordinate information from all the different outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I know how serious Legionnaires' disease can be as I suffered from an air conditioning virus about two years ago. However, will the Minister ensure that this does not become the latest in a long line of panics? Will he put the problem into perspective and continue to act with determination, together with Westminster city council, to try to find the origins of the disease, rather than react as the press and some Opposition Members might and turn the incident into another great disaster?

Mr. Cope: I do not think that it qualifies for the great disaster stakes. There are up to 200 cases of Legionnaires' disease a year compared with 180,000 cases of pneumonia. About 15 or 20 people die each year die from Legionnaires' disease. It is important to keep things in perspective but we should do everything possible to control and look after the disease.

Mr. Tony Banks: Given the number of water-cooled plants in central London, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), this is potentially disastrous and the Minister must appreciate that. Will he consider introducing legislation requiring annual inspections of the plants, because that seems to be overdue? Will he give a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box that the Government will make all resources available to the House and Westminster city council, if they request them, in order to track down the current outbreak?

Mr. Cope: There is no indication that the resources currently available are inadequate for the purpose. In fact, as far as I know, they are entirely adequate. We would respond carefully to any request for further legislation from the HSC or the HSE, as we always do. So far, they have not suggested the need for further legislation.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such outbreaks are, in essence, unnecessary and avoidable? Will he recognise that every case investigated by the Select Committee on Employment has shown that the guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive—known as EH48—were known to the employers, management and staff but were not being followed? Therefore, will he think clearly and carefully about the need to make those guidelines legally enforceable so that it becomes an offence for anybody to fail to carry them out? Will he accept that, if he does that, he will find that we do not need question and answer sessions such as this in the House in future?

Mr. Cope: I do not want to cut off question and answer sessions in the House, but I would rather deal with the disease. I have already said that we shall consider any specific proposals for legislation made by the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission or by other people. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 states that employers must provide for the health and safety of their employees. It was under that Act that the BBC was recently taken to court. Therefore, it is already an offence not to provide for the health and safety of one's employees.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Will the Minister say that more than five cases have already been confirmed? He mentioned only 10 suspected cases. Will he give instructions to staff to inspect the water coolers manufactured and used from 1972 because they seem to be causing the difficulties? Will he let the House know whether inspections of jacuzzis and whirlpools will be encompassed in the instructions?

Mr. Cope: The information I received just before I came to the House was that there were 10 suspected cases and five confirmed. I mentioned the figure of 10 in my original answer. All employers and others concerned should follow the advice which is already given in the guidance on Legionnaires' disease. If they have done that thoroughly,

their cooling systems should cause no problems. It is, of course, important to follow the specific advice of the environmental health officers who are on the spot dealing with this outbreak.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my hon. Friend assure us that this place is not affected by Legionnaires' disease? When were the water systems of this place last tested for Legionnaires' disease?

Mr. Cope: I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific reply to his first question, but I understand that the guidance given by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in their leaflets is carefully followed throughout this building.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Minister look at international experience in this area, especially the work done by the World Health Organisation and by the European Parliament, which have seriously considered over a number of years the implications of diseases caused by air conditioning, of which Legionnaires' disease is the most extreme? Does he agree that the sick building syndrome, probably caused by air conditioning, has not been taken seriously enough in Britain? Surely it is time that much firmer and stronger guidelines were issued by the Government, as diseases caused by air conditioning can cause many days off work and other serious problems for people.
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the air conditioning system in this place is inspected? Because of the effect that the air conditioning has on me in this Chamber—sitting here for over an hour at a time—and looking at my hon. Friends., I believe that the air conditioning system needs proper inspection and regular cleaning. I do not believe that that happens.

Mr. Cope: I believe that that does happen. One has to be careful before blaming the air conditioning for behaviour of hon. Members.
The Health and Safety Executive is in close and continuous touch with its colleagues in Europe and elsewhere about this, and, of course, other health problems. It is important that we make the best use that we can of everything that can be learnt from overseas. This disease was first identified in the United States, from where we received our original information about it.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that, while two air conditioning systems have been closed down, there are another 31 within a 200-metre radius of the National Gallery which are currently being investigated? Will he name the two large office buildings affected, so that the office workers within them and those who have used them within the past six weeks can be alerted to seek immediate medical advice if they have any relevant symptoms? As any of the 33 air conditioning systems in the area may be the source, will the Minister order them all to be shut down and until tests are fully completed to eliminate any further risk?
When referring to the previous outbreak at the BBC, the Secretary of State said:
any lessons learnt will be acted upon".—[Official Report, 5 July 1988; Vol. 136, c. 883.]
Is it not clear that lessons have not been learnt, because another outbreak has occurred only 10 months later and


only a few hundred yards away? Therefore, because wet cooling systems have been the source of previous outbreaks, will he consider the permanent closure of all wet cooling systems in urban areas?

Mr. Cope: I cannot confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave in the first part of his question, nor am I prepared to name individual systems which have been shut down, because I believe that to do so might give the impression that no other systems could be involved, and that anyone who was suspected of having Legionnaires' disease but who had not been involved with those two, or adjacent buildings, could not be affected. That is not the case. It could be extremely wider. I believe that the best guidance is that given by the Westminster city council and the environmental health people, which is that any doctor who suspects anybody of having Legionnaires' disease and who might be in any way connected with this outbreak should contact them. The wider the net is thrown, the better.
I do not believe that it would be right to close all such air conditioning systems. As I said earlier, if the guidelines are followed those systems are not dangerous. On the contrary. Therefore, there is no need to close them all, but it is necessary for people to follow the guidelines to ensure that they operate their systems correctly. That was one of the lessons learnt from the previous outbreak and that is the lesson that we are trying to get home to the public with the aid of the leaflets that I mentioned earlier.

Point of Order

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order in connection with your role as protector of Back-Bench rights, particularly in relation to direct constituency cases. Question No. 10 to the Secretary of State for Social Security was about the age limit for widows' pensions. My constituent, Mrs. Doreen Whitbread was the one who won the important test case about that age limit and the tribunal ruled that the retrospective impact of the regulations was unfair and that they were invalidly introduced. Mrs. Whitbread stated that she felt that the rug had been pulled from under her feet—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, but he is only one of a large number of hon. Members in this House who have an equal interest in this question. If it is a point of order for me, I shall deal with it.

Mr. Cohen: The point of order is that it was a direct constituency case, because my constituent was involved and won that important test case. The points that Mrs. Whitbread made during and after that tribunal hearing were the ones I wanted to put to the Minister. Will you confirm that it was your choice that I was not given the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Speaker: Sadly, it was my choice and I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has already said that I am the protector of Back-Bench Members' rights and interests and I must pay regard to all hon. Members. We did not get far at Question Time today and if I took into account every hon. Member who wanted to be called on every question, I fear we would have gone even more slowly. Today we reached only question No. 12, which was not a very good score.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) because, although I understand the point that you have made, the Minister specifically mentioned Mrs. Whitbread on a number of occasions and she happens to be my hon. Friend's constituent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I do not know who Mrs. Whitbread is.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister mentioned her.

Mr. Speaker: Well, he may know her, but I regret I do not.

PESTICIDES (FEES AND ENFORCEMENT BILL

Ordered,
That the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Water Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th March 1989.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 7th March may continue until Eight p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 8th March.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after 10 o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, he considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question of any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that


time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
'the Bill' means the Water Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committe;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The House will need no reminding of the importance of the Water Bill to which my motion would apply a timetable. The Bill will greatly benefit consumers, taxpayers, workers in the industry, future shareholders, and above all the environment. It will do this through a number of measures, which, by now, are well known to the House. It will establish a National Rivers Authority to take responsibility in England and Wales for the control of water pollution, for water resource management, flood defence, fisheries and navigation. The Bill will provide a new statutory framework for setting river quality objectives and other standards, with effective means of enforcement. The utility functions of the water authorities will be transferred to new limited companies, and the role of the 29 statutory water companies will be maintained, with provision for them to convert to plc status if they wish.

Mr. David Winnick: The Leader of the House spoke about protecting the consumer. As early as possible in his speech will he explain how consumers will be assisted by the 30 per cent. increase that existing private companies will bring in as quickly as possible as a result of privatisation?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already said that the 30 per cent. price increase is not justified. Water charges would have to rise, irrespective of privatisation, to help to pay for higher standards of drinking water quality and sewage treatment. The price of water is still low compared with the price of other basic services in western Europe. I repeat

that there is nothing in our proposals that could justify statutory water companies raising their charges by 30 per cent. or more. The Bill will further seek to provide for the terms of the new companies' appointment and for the sale of their shares to the public towards the end of this year.

Dr. John Cunningham: It is all very well for the Leader of the House to say that these price increases, ranging from 30 to 50 per cent., are not justified. However, they will happen as we predicted they would in December—a prediction that the Secretary of State for the Environment pooh-poohed. People will pay more simply because of the Government's dogma in insisting on privatising water. It is no good saying that the Government do not like the price increases, because consumers are being ripped off.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman may have no faith in the ability to negotiate anything and perhaps in his case he is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss these matters with the water industry. These increases are not justified by anything to do with privatisation. Let us see what happens at the end of the discussions.
There will be a clear legal framework for the duties, functions and powers of the new companies, and water and sewarage law will be updated. A Director General of Water Services will be appointed to keep water and sewerage services under review and to protect the interests of customers. In all, it is the most far-reaching reform in the history of the water industry.
The Government's commitment to privatisation of the water industry is long-standing and well-known. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) first announced in February 1985 that the Government intended to examine the prospects for the privatisation of the water industry. A discussion document followed shortly thereafter. Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced in February 1986 that the Government had decided to transfer the 10 water authorities in England and Wales to private ownership. A White Paper containing detailed proposals was issued, and this was followed by two consultation papers on sewerage law and the water environment respectively, which developed these aspects of the proposals. The Government consulted widely on all those documents.
In May 1987 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the pollution control functions of the water authorities would remain in the public sector under a new National Rivers Authority. Privatisation on that basis was a feature of our manifesto for the June 1987 election, which saw the Government returned to office with a large vote of confidence. The detailed proposals were set out in two further consultation papers later that year. The result of all this is the extremely thorough and detailed Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading by 301 votes to 241.
The Bill has also received detailed scrutiny in the House. It had two full days for Second Reading, and the Standing Committee has so far devoted nearly 75 hours to the first nine clauses and four schedules. There are another 171 clauses yet to be considered. I welcome the careful attention that the Bill has received so far, but I am concerned that sufficient consideration be given to all parts of this large and wide-ranging Bill. Major issues still to be


covered include customer service standards, drinking water quality, the control of pollution, sewerage, flood defences and fisheries.
The House would wish these subjects to be considered no less carefully than our proposals on the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services, and the duties of the Secretary of State. But this consideration must be balanced against our commitment to ensure that the legislation is enacted this Session. If we are to arrange for the sale of shares towards the end of the year and leave sufficient time for the necessary regulations to be made after Royal Assent, we must speed up our pace. I regret that we simply do not have available the 80 weeks, or about 1,400 hours, that it would take the Committee to finish its scrutiny if it were to continue at its present rate.
I am not suggesting that there has been excessive filibustering in Committee, but I believe that a constructive timetable motion is now necessary. I have brought it forward to ensure proper, measured discussion of all parts of a complex and important Bill. It is also important that the Bill receives this full scrutiny before it goes to another place.
In devising my motion, I have had in mind also the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament—that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage of a Bill can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. In the debate on the Procedure Committee's reports towards the end of last year, while I argued that it was important for the Government to retain flexibility on timetable motions, I said that I shared the Committee's desire to move towards the introduction of timetable motions, if necessary and where possible, at a time that allows for properly apportioned consideration of a Bill.

Mr. Richard Livsey: By imposing this timetable, in which the crucial date appears to be 7 March, is not the Leader of the House assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce in the Budget that the assets of the water authorities will be included in the following year's accounts, to the benefit of the Government and their policies?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his plans, to which I am not party, did not form any part of the discussions that I had about whether this was the right time to introduce a timetable motion. We did so to ensure that the Committee and remaining stages are adequate to discuss the many remaining subjects in a balanced and sensible way.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: My right hon. Friend is being his usual polite and moderate self, and one welcomes the grounds that he is putting forward for the timetable motion. Will he bear in mind that we have had to listen to most of the contents of the Tatler magazine being read out by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and to the clubs and attainments of Lord Crickhowell? Those are just two illustrations of what we have had to endure over the long proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Wakeham: The first draft of my speech said that there had been "no filibustering" and I changed that to "no

excessive filibustering" after I had read over the weekend the fascinating reports about the Tatler and one or two other incidents.
If the Committee continues to sit each week for 18 hours, which is about the number of hours that it has done so far, there is the prospect of another 78 hours or so of debate. As is customary, it would be for the Business Sub-Committee, which has the important task of allocating the amount of time for discussion of each part of the Bill within the total days available, to decide whether the present pattern of sittings should be maintained or might sensibly be increased. As a number of the remaining clauses are consequential or supplementary, I believe that the Business Sub-Committee will have considerable scope to ensure that time is allocated in such a way as to enable an adequate scrutiny of all the remaining parts of the Bill. In addition, there will be three full days of debate on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading. The motion provides that the first two of these days will run until midnight.
These generous provisions show that it is not our intention to cut short debate on this Bill. I commend the motion to the House, in the belief that it represents the best and most realistic way to debate the Water Bill, a Bill of fundamental importance which will benefit the consumer and the industry and, at the same time, safeguard and improve the environment.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I compliment the Leader of the House, or perhaps his Private Office, on the sweet reasons that he came up with for the second guillotine motion of 1989. The first one was that on the proceedings of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and the Leader of the House argued that we had to rush it through before the current Act ran out. I half expected him to argue that we had to pass the Water Bill before the water ran out. Knowing the ineptitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that might have proved a more prudent argument than the one the Leader of the House used.
Last year, the Leader of the House introduced no fewer than six guillotine motions—a record for any parliamentary Session. Now, with this Session scarcely two months old, he is introducing his second guillotine motion in a fortnight. Some think that he is going for his own record, hyped up by the wonder drug that drives on all his cringing Cabinet colleagues—fear for his job and fear of the Prime Minister. Others attribute this guillotine-happy phase to the bicentenary of the French revolution. As the modern Tory party has little sense of history, I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman that Dr. Guillotine, the eponymous proposer of the then high tech instrument of decapitation, did not get it into operation until 1792, so any bicentenary celebration of the guillotine is premature. The guillotine on the Water Bill is equally premature.

Mr. Alistair Burt: While the right hon. Gentleman is going through history, could he tell the House whether it was a Conservative or Labour Government who tabled five guillotine motions in a day during the 1974–75 Session?

Mr. Dobson: It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introduced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He will probably be


along later, because he does not miss many sittings. He introduced a Bill that enacted five guillotine motions in one day, but they were the only five in that Session. The Leader of the House is the record holder, having introduced six guillotine motions. Those motions were introduced by a Government with a majority of 100 and a guaranteed majority in the other place, and came in the first long Session of a Parliament—something that has never before been done. That either says something about the incompetence of the Leader of the House or shows that we are rather better in opposition than some in the Press Gallery give us credit for.
We are faced with the second guillotine motion in two months at the beginning of a parliamentary Session. The Government have failed to answer practically every question put to them by the Opposition about the Water Bill. They have also failed to answer questions put to them by people outside who are concerned about the future of the water supply. The Government propose to curtail debate in Committee to reduce their embarrassment at not being able to cope both with what is happening in the real world and the questioning to which they are being subjected by my hon. Friends. Today, I shall try to put some of the most important points again, not with much hope of getting a reply but in the hope that at least people will know that here in Parliament we are asking questions even if the Government will not come up with answers.
The main basis of the Government's credo on the Bill is that they want to hand over our water industry to profit-seeking private water companies because that will ensure that market forces work to the benefit of the consumer. Even the most fanatical supporter of Adam Smith, and certainly anyone who has read his works, should know that market forces can work only when the consumer has a choice, but the Bill will not give the consumer a choice. How can it? There will still be only one water pipe to each home. The Government are proposing a simple transfer of the ownership of water from the publicly owned water authorities and the strictly regulated statutory water companies to a collection of semi-regulated, money-grabbing monopolists. A dissatisfied customer will get no choice. The Government are saying to the customers, "If you do not like your water supply, get a bucket and get water from somewhere else."
Another major question is who will own the new water companies. Will one company own the lot, so that there will not only be no choice, but no chance to compare the performance of one company with that of another? The Government said originally that they would prevent that happening by having a golden share. We understand, however, that one of their former colleagues, Sir Leon Brittan, may rule that the Government cannot play the golden share to stop such takeovers and the formation of one monopoly company. We could do with an answer from the Minister on that, but it is one that to date he has refused to give.
The next questions are who would be likely to buy the water industry, and why. The recent history of takeovers, combined with the recent history of the sale of some public assets, can fill the water consumer only with foreboding. The most recent takeovers have had more to do with asset stripping and property speculation than with a better deal for customers. The same can be said of some of the

privatisations. For example, the royal ordnance factories were sold to British Aerospace. The theory was that the sale would produce an all-purpose armaments company. In practice, it was merely a rip-off. When the factories were sold by the Government to British Aerospace, the land at the Enfield and Waltham Abbey sites was valued at only £3·5 million. The new owners immediately revalued the sites at over £400 million. The arms factories are to be closed so that the land can be sold.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: That is not true.

Mr. Dobson: If I have to choose between the words of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee and that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), I shall go along with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC.
The potential purchaser of the water industry will not be attracted by its pumping stations, its filtration plants, its thousands of miles of water connections and its customers. Not likely! All those facilities, including, perhaps, the customers, need money spent on them, as well as skilled staff and management skills. The real attraction of the industry—both the publicly owned water authorities and the regulated statutory water companies—is its land. We understand—I say "understand", because the Government will not produce the figures—that the industry owns over half a million acres. Some of that land comprises prime city centre sites while other land is in the suburbs, where it might be used for house building. Much more land is in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is on the land that potential purchasers' eyes are focused. They have their eyes on property for property speculation. We all know who gains and who loses from property speculation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is inconceivable that planning permission would be given for such development in our national parks?

Mr. Dobson: I am dealing with what might be described as the Department of the Environment's twin-track approach to land sales and property speculation in the national parks. The Secretary of State intends to put the companies in a position in which they can sell off assets, and at the same time he is trying to relax planning restrictions on developments in the national parks. In other words, he will get the national parks both ways.
If Conservative Members believe that nothing is wrong with property speculation, let me remind them of the words that were used in 1909 in Lancashire by the grandfather of the hon. Member for Crawley. I refer to the occasion when Winston Churchill spelt out that the prows of the property speculator were reaped in direct proportion to the disservice done to the rest of society. That is how we can measure what the property speculators will be doing.
We are told that the Government appointed Schroder—[Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Baker: May I advise the hon. Gentleman to cease scraping the barrel? If he took the trouble to read the reports of the proceedings in Committee, he would discover that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning has anwered the questions that have been put to him.

Mr. Dobson: We shall come on to that. I think that it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to refer to the hon. Member for Crawley as a barrel.
We know that the Government appointed Schroder to value the water industry's public assets. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State—glasnost in reverse—refuses to disclose the valuation to the British people. I have no doubt, however, that he will show the figures to would-be buyers. I have no doubt also that the Prime Minister hopes that some of the profits will eventually be siphoned back into Tory party funds. That might happen as a consequence of a novel use of the water companies, as revealed by Rosie Waterhouse in The Independent.
The people generally, not only potential purchasers, are entitled to know the value of the land assets if only so that they can calculate in the fullness of time how much the water rip-off has cost every family in the land. Perhaps the Secretary of State, in looking to his future and being fearful for his place in the Cabinet, is thinking of following the example of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and British Telecom. Perhaps ere long he, too, will be able to complement the sell-off that he organised with a pay-off by becoming a director of the privatised company.
Ministers have refused to disclose the value of the assets, but they have been suggesting that sell-offs would benefit customers as the proceeds would be devoted to investment in the industry and environmental improvements. As we read the Bill, especially if it remains unamended, that is not true. How do Ministers propose to stop land assets being hived off to subsidiary companies or incorporated in a part of a conglomerate that takes over a water company? It that happens, profits will not accrue to the benefit of the customers. Equally, they will not be ploughed back into the industry to improve the quality of water or to reduce pollution. Instead, the profits will go where they always go, to the shareholders.
Ministers have told us that there will be regulations, and so there will. However, as Keith Court, the boss of South West Water, said when he thought that he was not being reported, the job of the industry will be to outwit the regulators. As the Secretary of State is to be the principal regulator, the smart money will be on those who are intent on outwitting him. His record so far—[Interruption.] I shall produce evidence to support my assertion. As Secretary of State for Transport and as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has an unenviable record in the courts. He has lost rather a lot of cases at the expense of the taxpayer. His record is so bad that he was once rightly described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—one of my witty hon. Friends—as having more form than the Kray twins. That is all the more reason why there should be plenty of time to consider these matters carefully and at length in Committee, if only so that the Secretary of State can learn in advance what his own legislation means before he is up before the courts again.
The Bill has been put over the Government as a green measure. That is true, but it is not the green of the environment. Instead, it is the green of envy. Their Tory friends have their envious eyes on the disposable assets of the industry and on the monopoly supply of water, which no one, not even the hon. Member for Crawley, can do without. That is about as green as the Bill gets. Even the sensible proposal to set up the National Rivers Authority,

which we have welcomed, is undermined by both doubts and certainties. There are doubts about its powers and funding and certainties about its designated boss, Lord Crickhowell. In 1987, he appeared to be held as to either too old or too stupid to remain Secretary of State for Wales, or even as the right hon. Member for Pembroke. Yet now, along with all the other perks that he has had at the hands of the Government, he has been appointed to head the NRA.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the most offensive remarks that he has made about the former right hon. Member for Pembroke. He may know that Lord Crickhowell, as he now is, was seriously ill for a number of years as a result of a disease that he caught in the far east while on a Government visit to promote Wales. Thankfully, he has recovered from that illness and is now restored to his former health.

Mr. Dobson: If Lord Crickhowell was too ill to be a Member of Parliament, he is still too ill to be the boss of the National Rivers Authority. I stick to that position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will certainly not withdraw. There is nothing to withdraw.

Mr. David Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman's case so weak that he must disparage someone who served with honour in this House? Is that the hon. Gentleman's case?

Mr. Dobson: My case is that if the National Rivers Authority is to command the respect of everyone, it should not be headed by a partisan appointee who receives £40,000 a year for working a three-day week. That is my case.

Mr. James Pawsey: That is not the point. The point that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has made which we found particularly offensive was his reference to Lord Crickhowell being stupid or old. The hon. Gentleman has qualified that. However, the hon. Gentleman, who is well regarded in this House, should withdraw what he has said.

Mr. Dobson: I always thought that he was too stupid and old when he was a Member of this House, so I will not withdraw.
The Government claim that the Bill means that the new private owners of the water industry will invest in environmental improvements and in improving water standards. However, as we read the Bill, those provisions are subject to the new companies making enough profits from their water supply functions to make that investment. If, as I have explained, they are likely to siphon off the profits from land sales to non-water supply subsidiaries and holding companies, where will the money for that investment come from?
We do not really need an answer from the Minister to that question today because we know the answer already. The money will come from increases in water charges. Increases in those charges have been pushed above the rate of inflation for some years and there is more to come. Last week the Minister announced that water charges by the publicly-owned water authorities would increase by up to 13 per cent. this year. This weekend we heard that the private statutory water companies are planning to increase their charges by anything between 30 and 50 per cent. At


least for a moment, reality impinged again on the fantasy water world of the Minister for Water and Planning and he rushed to the news media to denounce those companies. He said that he was going to summon them to meet him.
The latest question for the Minister to answer is what increase will the statutory water companies levy this year. Can he confirm that they would not have considered increases of this size if they had not been threatened with this privatisation legislation? All those increases are making an impact now, even before the legislation is introduced. One of the reasons for the increases is that they are a preparation for what will happen after the Bill becomes an Act. That is usually called fattening the beast for market.
Who wants the Bill? The answer is a few of the self-same secretive, Right-wing weirdos who came up with the ideas behind the recent National Health Service White Paper—the loons who dare not speak their names. Most people do not want the Bill. They know that it is a rip-off and that it is designed to hand over a natural monopoly into private hands. If you will excuse the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are even more fearful of the knowledge that those private hands have the ear of the Prime Minister.
The Government claim that the Bill is the only way to raise standards in the water industry. Those standards certainly need raising. Britain has been taken to court by the EEC for having poor quality water and foul beaches more often than any other country in Europe. The Government must take the blame for that. They have been in power for 10 years. The prosecutions have taken place under this Government and the responsibility is theirs. I am sure that people in this country will remember that responsibility when they listen to the Government giving answers to problems with the water supply about which people are not aware because the Government got us into this mess in the first place.
The Bill is long and complicated. It must be examined carefully. Questions must be asked and are being asked, but they are not being answered. The House and the public are entitled to answers. If Ministers do not know the answers, they should say so. If they do know the answers, they should make them public.
The timetable motion is intended to prevent that process of question and answer. We have been asking the questions, but the Government have not produced the answers. We reject the motion and in due course we believe that the country will reject the irrelevant and expensive Bill.

Mr. Roger Knapman: We have spent 74½ hours in Committee debating eight clauses out of a total of 180. I am sure that hon. Members can calculate the potential number of hours that would remain in Committee to complete consideration. It has taken 74½ hours to reach part II. Heaven knows how long it would take to reach part IV which is headed "Charges by undertakers." At the present rate of progress, that heading might have more relevance than hon. Members realise at the moment.
How has the time been used so far? Hardly had the ink dried on the extraordinary statement from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that the Government are stealing the water from the people and putting it into

private hands, a statement which neatly sidestepped the fact that 25 per cent. of the industry is already in private hands, than we entered the world of economics.
Early sessions of the Committee were enlivened by the economic views and political dogma of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). They deserve the most extensive circulation. On 10 January the hon. Member for Bootle managed to say:
If the water authorities are in the public sector after the next election, which the Labour party will win, we shall lift public sector borrowing requirement restrictions on borrowing for capital purposes.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning intervened and said:
If the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, will he tell the Committee why the water industry was subject to public sector borrowing restrictions between 1974 and 1979?
To which the hon. Member for Bootle, unabashed, continued:
Yes, because the Labour party got it wrong. I was not a Member of this place during that period. If it had got it right, it might have won the election … I was first elected in 1979 and regrettably one of the things that contributed to the Labour party's general election defeat that year was the imposition of public sector borrowing requirement restrictions on bodies such as water authorities. We have learnt our lesson and rethought our policy. What I am advocating is now Labour party policy.
I asked him:
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Labour Government lost the 1979 election because they did not spend enough?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 January 1988, c. 88–89.]
The hon. Member for Bootle answered "Yes." The hon. Member for Bootle does not appear to be particularly concerned with the detail—or should I say the trivia—of negotiations with the International Monetary Fund back in the 1970s.
Of course the hon. Member for Bootle did not claim the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who said:
I am 41 years old and cannot remember a period of Socialist Government.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was a mature student in the 1970s and therefore can take a detached view on these matters. It is possible that he is a late developer. If that is the case, it would cause a few shudders on the Conservative Benches.
We heard at great length the economic views of the hon. Member for Bootle—straightforward 1930s, mark one, clause 4 primitive Socialism. We did not hear on all those matters from certain other members of the Committee. We do not know whether the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), for example, agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, when he says, "This is Labour party policy". It will be nice if the hon. Member for Copeland confirms that that is so. Does he agree that there should be no controls on public spending, and that the 1979 general election was lost because the then Labour Government did not spend enough?
Perhaps the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland demonstrates that he does agree with his hon. Friend, so there is no need for him to say anything. But his silence may mean that he disagrees, and that he does not wish to say anything because he wants to avoid a row in public. Again, the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland may be because he is shy—but that is not a general characteristic of right hon. and hon. Members, so I must consider instead the first two possibilities. We hope to hear from the hon. Member for Copeland soon—and I trust


that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to detach from him the information I seek as soon as possible.
Later, there were equally lengthy contributions by Opposition Members on conservation and the environment—all elevated to a science these days. I suppose that, seen from Sunderland, Brent, Bootle or Burnley, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks must seem like the ideal picnic spots to those who desire to visit them. There is an element of truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. Not once in Committee was there any shred of acknowledgement that people live in such areas and have to make their living there. There was no comprehension that national parks are not nationalised parks. Above all, there was no understanding that habitat is all important, and that nothing is more destructive of habitat than people.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the point that I made in Committee concerning the destruction done to the valley in the Lake District by the water authority there? Does he not acknowledge that the Committee debated at great length the problems of people living in the Lake District and the fears they have regarding development after privatisation?

Mr. Knapman: As I mentioned previously, about 25 per cent. of water authorities are in private hands. Perhaps people already congregate on the streets and say, "It is a pity that we live in a private water company area, because it is much worse than being under a public water authority." I am making the point that it is the balance between conservation and public access that is vital. It is that balance which we seek to achieve—as my hon. and learned Friend explained to the Committee, time and again.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the record of the Essex water company in private hands? It has consistently denied to ramblers the right to cross its land, when they have a legal right to do so—and when it is clearly in the interests of the environment and of the public that such access should be allowed. Is that the kind of record he wants to see other private companies emulate?

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Bill's purpose is strictly to separate the poacher and gamekeeper parts of the water industry. I thought that the hon. Member for Copeland explained on many occasions that that was so. He also mentioned that it was the function, and not the ownership, of the land that is of prime importanc—and in that he is absolutely right.
The Committee proceeded—as I fear that I am proceeding—at a snail's pace, listening to the comical view of Opposition Members that legitimate country sports include fishing, because 3 million people, including the hon. Member for Copeland, fish—but that for some reason shooting and hunting are not legitimate country sports. What sort of hypocrisy is that?

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): To do the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) justice, while agreeing with the Labour party's last general election manifesto that fox hunting should be banned, he made a special exception for his own constituency, which is in a national park, saying that it was all right for fox hunting to be allowed in national parks.

Mr. Knapman: I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for making that clear. The hon. Member for Copeland makes a habit of such exceptions. I believe that he has nuclear energy interests in his constituency, and that he sought to opt out of the Labour party manifesto's proposals in respect of nuclear power. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's exceptions are a more common occurrence than I previously understood.
The Committee heard also Opposition objections based on political dogma, yet there was no explanation of why there are private water companies in France, under a Socialist Government, but that it is deemed to be right that in this country, under a Conservative Government, the state should provide water and sewerage services. There were also objections to the sale in national parks of land that is surplus to requirements. Those objections were voiced despite my hon. and learned Friend's correct view, which he repeatedly expressed, that land function and land usage should be the determining factor, not land ownership.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my hon. Friend inform the House of the amendment that I and my hon. Friends tabled at the end of the Committee's proceedings, the substance of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed to consider sympathetically, to see whether he can bring forward on Report a measure to provide extra protection for national parks, in the way of consultation? That may answer the only point of any substance raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Had he read the Committee's proceedings, he would have found the answer to his question there, too.

Mr. Knapman: I wish to spare the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) the duty of reading the Committee's proceedings over 74½ hours. Opposition Members generally failed to specify why surplus land in national parks belonging to water companies is so different from all other land in national parks that it requires a vast amount of red tape and a huge bureaucracy to look after it.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Knapman: I trust that the hon. Gentleman has had time to look into the matter.

Mr. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in terms of access to the countryside, all manner of informal access agreements have been reached with water authorities that are not necessarily binding on their successors? Therefore, there are enormous tracts of land to which the public currently have access, but to which access will not be guaranteed when private owners have control of it—particularly if they wish to dispose of that land to other parties that intend doing something with it.

Mr. Knapman: No, I do not accept that. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spent a considerable time trying to explain to Opposition Members that a huge number of footpaths, bridle paths, and so on, will be respected. There are also concessionary paths. However, if one makes concessionary paths mandatory by subsequent legislation, who in future will grant such a concession?
The whole matter is summed up by an excellent leader in the Evening Standard:


The Government has bent and bowed to so many … empire-defending water officials that its scheme to sell off the water industry to its customers is in danger of … over-regulation.
The Opposition objected today, as they have before, to price increases—yet they insist on higher standards. How can one have one without the other? Finally, in Committee we listened for hour after hour to amendments for amending sake. Typical of the Opposition's amendments was the one requiring the National Rivers Authority to publish an annual report setting out details of borrowing. There was a lengthy debate before my hon. and learned Friend was able to intervene, saying:
I can hardly believe my ears. The Bill requires the NRA to produce an audited annual report.
But did that abash Opposition Members?

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Knapman: No, I have given way enough. I know that the hon. Gentleman is always brief, but I shall not give way any more.
Opposition Members merely continued with the debate on who the report should be sent to and then, in great detail, discussed the North West water authority accounts, which were supposed to be brilliant. It is to be hoped that they had studied all the accounts of all the companies. Eventually my hon. and learned Friend the Minister commented:
I am just wondering why the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to talk about every conceivable thing except the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 January 1989; c. 284.]
But it was too late: the afternoon had gone.
Most people want a clear and constant water supply. They want effluent to be disposed of quickly and efficiently. Their objectives will be best achieved through privatisation, and particularly by separating the provider of the service from those enforcing standards.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) mentioned an occasion on which the Minister intervened after we had debated an amendment at some length to say that the amendment was not necessary because the annual reports were already required. If that is true, why did the Minister not intervene earlier? Was he deliberately allowing the Committee to discuss at length an amendment that need not have been debated?

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): That was because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I lived in hope—as I have done throughout the Committee stage—that Opposition Members might have genuine points to raise. Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that my expectations were sadly disappointed?

Mr. Pike: That is no answer, and the Minister knows it. Despite his qualifications as a learned legal man, he merely does the job that he is instructed to do under the heavy hand of the Secretary of State—to get the legislation through. As he knows, if he has a contribution to make on any amendment he can make it, because in Committee any hon. Member, including a Minister, can contribute more than once.
By no means all the amendments have come from Opposition Members: a number have been tabled by Conservative Members. Nevertheless, although the Minister has said that he is prepared to consider one or two points, and on one occasion told us that he was prepared to discuss certain aspects of the Bill with organisations that had expressed concern, on most issues the Government have been prepared to make no concessions.
Although we have debated only nine clauses and four schedules so far, they have dealt with issues to which we shall return at a later stage, and they will not all require the same depth of consideration. Today's motion, however, giving the Bill just a month from tomorrow to complete its Committee stage, seems unnecessary. If the Government thought that it was necessary, they could have provided more time.
We must remember that we are legislating for people outside the House, and many of those people are still anxious about many aspects of the Bill. Leaving the question of privatisation aside for the moment, let me point out that those people want to ensure that our heritage—areas such as the Lake District, the districts of Wales, national parks, the Peak District and the Trough of Bowland—are preserved for their children. They believe that the Bill needs tightening up. So do the Ramblers' Association, the British Mountaineering Council and many other bodies that make good use of the recreational facilities provided by the open spaces now owned by water authorities.
We must also consider consumer interests. It is clear that the capital installation and reading of meters will involve additional costs, and that the water authorities will eventually need more than they need at present. Unless we include adequate safeguards, the Bill will penalise unduly large families, the families of the incontinent, and those whose jobs involve extra washing of work clothes, and additional baths.
We believe that the industry should remain in public ownership. It is an issue too basic and crucial to the needs of the people to be privatised, when comparative competition—a phrase that has been used several times—economy and profit are allowed to become criteria that can be unfairly measured against such matters as water quality, pollution, conservation and access. There must be an appropriate balance.
As I have often said, a clear difference between the two sides of the House is that, while Conservative Members judge everything in cash terms and invariably take money as the criterion that matters, we see many other important issues. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment about river and estuary pollution made it clear that the public sector borrowing requirement and the external financial limit need not be applied to the water industry, even if it remained in the public sector. It was clearly possible to remove the industry from the limits on its capital investment through means other than privatisation.
We have spent considerable time discussing the National Rivers Authority. Let me make it clear that as yet no member of the Committee has expressed opposition to the principle of such an authority. We consider it right to separate the regulatory powers—to separate poacher from gamekeeper. But the National Rivers Authority must be able to do the job for which it is being established.
The Secretary of State described this as a green Bill and a great step forward environmentally. Setting up the authority can be a step forward, but only if it can be given the financial powers to do its job properly. We believe in the environment, but we have doubts about the commitment of the Conservative party to environmental issues.
A separate Bill could have been introduced to establish a National Rivers Authority. The Government would not then have been faced with a timetable motion. A National Rivers Authority could have been set up this year and the Government could have introduced a Bill to privatise water next year. However, they are impatient to privatise water because they want the money from its privatisation, and from the privatisation of the electricity industry, so that they can con the electors at the next general election.
The debates in Committee have been constructive. I was pleased that the Leader of the House used milder language in his opening speech than he has used on previous occasions. He said that there had been no excessive filibustering. I believe that there has been no filibustering. If there has been any, it is Conservative Members who have filibustered. They have taken up time unnecessarily by moving amendments that they had no intention of putting to the vote. The Committee could make progress and it should be given more time in which to do so. The timetable motion should be defeated so that these important issues can be fully considered in Committee.
The Leader of the House referred to the Committee needing, at the present rate of progress, a further 80 weeks to complete its consideration of the Bill. That was misleading. The Committee will make faster progress as certain points are dealt with and eliminated from the debate. Conservative Members who are doubtful about the implications of these important and wide-ranging issues should be prepared to vote against the motion and thereby ensure that more time can be devoted to discussing them. Only in that way can we protect the public interest.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Once again the Mother of Parliaments meets in absolute tumult and turmoil as it discusses another guillotine motion. Once again hon. Members can hardly get into the Chamber. They have to fight their way through so that they can discuss an important matter concerning free speech—whether it is right that the Government should curtail debate on an important Bill. We walk through the corridors discussing this vital matter of the day. The reality, however, is that we are not debating it in those circumstances.
I wish to spend a few minutes speaking about the procedure and practice of guillotine motions. There is a natural tendency in debates such as these to speak in general terms about the substance of the Bill that is the subject of the timetable motion rather than about procedural matters. However, the debates provide a useful opportunity to discuss procedure. A number of senior Members on both sides of the House have said on previous occasions that timetable motions should not pass without a reasonable discussion of points of procedure. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall therefore spend a few minutes discussing them.
I sympathise with the efforts to reform the way in which parliamentary Bills are considered. In our daily lives

outside this place we know that it is common sense to plan. It is also common sense for the Government and the Opposition to plan the business of the House. It is a constitutional fiction, to which we sometimes pay lip service outside the House, that this place works with a great deal of confrontation, when we debate hotly and when we do not speak to each other. That is how the general public believe that Parliament conducts its business. We know, however, that that is not the case. We get on with each other reasonably well. Those who sit on the Government and Opposition Front Benches consult one another, often behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, to ensure that the business of the House gets done. It makes sense to plan. At the moment, that is a relatively informal procedure.
The proposal to ensure that Bills are timetabled from an early stage suggests to me that informal consultation would become formal. If we were to argue outside the House that better planning is a drawback, that argument would not be given house room. However, we have often used that argument as a way of keeping our method of dealing with Bills intact.
It must also be right to ensure examination of all parts of the Bill from the start. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), in a far better speech than that which was made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), referred clearly to the sort of matters that still have to be considered. There is a lot to get through; it is a difficult Bill. It makes sense to spend an adequate amount of time on everything. It would be better, though, to think about that earlier and to make plans right from the start. The informal procedure works to a certain extent but I believe that something different might work better.
An important constitutional point is that this Chamber is seen more and more as being subordinate to the other place. The media now spend much time and energy on what the other place does after Bills leave this Chamber. They expect Bills to be considered in more depth and they expect to hear more exciting debates in the other place. Public attenion is turned all too often to the other place rather than to this Chamber. That cannot be good. This place remains the premier Chamber and it is right that the public should concentrate on what happens in this House. If our procedures hinder that process, that cannot be good. That may be one reason for considering a change in our procedures.
Against the argument for change in the way that Bills are considered, one weighty argument is advanced: that it is to the advantage of the Government of the day that they should be able to plan.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: If there were more opposition on the hon. Gentleman's side of the House, where there is a large majority, and if Conservative Members argued the case, all hon. Members would pay more attention, but the fact is that the case is made on the Opposition side of the House. All that Conservative Members have to do is to use their big majority and vote down the Opposition's case.

Mr. Burt: It hardly lies in the mouth of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) to suggest that opposition to the Government would be better if more Conservative Members opposed the Government. The opposition to the Government's case must come from the Opposition Benches. It is precisely because opposition to


the Government's measures by the Labour party has been so inadequate that the Government have such a large majority. That is something which lies not in our hands but in the Opposition's hands to remedy.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree, with his experience of the Committee, which I share with him, that most of the constructive suggestions and debates in Committee have emanated from the amendments that were moved by Conservative Back Benchers?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. Many good points have been made by Conservative Members in Committee. That is not unnatural, bearing in mind their expertise. If the hon. Member for Walton were a member of the Committee, perhaps we should enjoy a similar degree of expertise on the other side.
Against the various advantages of changing the timetable procedure there is the argument that the Government have a major planning advantage. They can prevent the Opposition from enjoying the great power of delay. In many of our debates on procedure it has been said that if the Opposition were to lose their power of delay, their power to wring concessions from an unwilling Government would be lost. I am not convinced that in the last 20 years there has been much evidence that that is a particularly powerful argument.

Mr. Heifer: How does the hon. Gentleman know? He has not been here for 20 years.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; I have not been here for 20 years. If the hon. Gentleman is quite content with the way this place has worked while he has been here—and he has been here for a long time—it suggests to me a degree of complacency and the self-satisfaction that I am rather surprised to see on his face.
The timetabling of Bills is a difficult matter. That is why hon. Members, with their varying degrees of experience—from the great experience of the hon. Member for Walton to the lesser experience of hon. Members of my intake and Members of the intake after me—should return to it time and time again. For the avoidance of doubt on the Treasury Bench, I wish to suggest that I am a reformer rather than an iconoclast. I am not suggesting an immediate—

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Burt: Here is an iconoclast, and of course I give way to him.

Mr. Boateng: Is not the hon. Gentleman a bit of a crawler as well? Is not that really the tone of what he has said during the past few minutes? Complacency and self-satisfaction describe the attitude of Ministers, not Opposition Members. They showed complacency and self-satisfaction in every response that they made in Committee.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman knows all about crawling. It was he who introduced to the Committee the Tatler magazine with its prominent spread of his Front Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr.

Cunningham). If that is not an example of crawling, I am not merely new here, I am wet behind the ears—and that I am not.
Timetabling is difficult. The time has come to take a hard look once again at the possibility of introducing a more formal timetable procedure as a limited experiment. It should not be a complete change; the House must have time to consider the way in which it would work, but an experiment might be called for at some stage.
Certain informal practices which now exist mean that the Opposition and the Government are able to debate their various points. If a new procedure were put into operation, it would merely mean that this place would adapt and new conventions would arise around the more informal way of timetabling.

Mr. Allen McKay: There are a few hon. Members who would agree with the hon. Gentleman. We certainly need more than two months to consider a Bill of this size and complexity, and which is so important to everyone in this country. It would take about four months to consider adequately the Bill if his suggestion were adopted.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the difficulty that any Government would have in dealing with a major item of their manifesto. There can never be a Panglossian solution offering "the best of all possible worlds". There will always have to be compromise. The Opposition will never receive as much time as they feel is necessary and the Government can never give them as much time as they want. The Government have allowed a reasonable time for discussion of the Bill, and the procedure I suggest would also allow an adequate compromise.

Mr. Win Griffiths: If a compromise is to be reached, it should be between the projected amount of time necessary to complete the examination of the Bill as it is being debated, and the amount of time being allowed in today's timetable motion. That would be a real compromise and a sign of the Government's goodwill and desire for a proper discussion of the issues.

Mr. Burt: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but it is best not to become too deeply involved in the way that such new procedures would work. There will be plenty of opportunity to do so in the Select Committee on Procedure.
Today's timetable motion debate is a ritual which does not do the House a great deal of credit. The only response from the Opposition Front Bench was a fairly typical speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. A timetable motion used to be an opportunity for enormous outrage from Opposition Members—clearly it is not now. The only outrage came from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and, once again, he proved his capacity to let down himself and his colleagues by substituting unpleasantness for argument. That is to be deeply regretted, because the hon. Gentleman is well liked in the House, but, occasionally, he lets himself down.
It is time to get a move on with the Water Bill, whose contents formed part of the Conservative party's manifesto at the last election. It was endorsed then and should now proceed to the statute book. The Bill is similar to others that have come before the House, such as the Education Reform Bill, the legislation on the deregulation


of buses, and the measure limiting the powers of general practitioners to prescribe certain drugs. All those measures were represented by Opposition Members as more or less the end of civilisation as they had come to know it. They said that such measures would irrevocably change services and prove completely destructive. However, none of those measures has done so: most of them were warmly welcomed by the public and were successful for the Government.
For the first 18 months after bus deregulation, the number of bus miles increased by 16 per cent. nationally, and minibuses now operate in about 400 areas. Since June 1988, there has been a net increase of 465 new operators. The socially necessary services—the very services that Opposition Members said would disappear completely—are protected by Government grant. About £240 million has been spent by the Government to subsidise them, out of an available total of £295 million, which means that £55 million was not even required for socially necessary services.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the record of private bus companies, in terms of the percentage of their buses that pass the annual PSV test, leaves much to he desired? Deregulation has not been a success in terms of proving that the safety of the travelling public has been enhanced.

Mr. Burt: The measure has proved that the safety controls contained in it—much criticised at the time—have proved useful and proved that it was quite right to introduce them. They have highlighted faults. The measure to deregulate buses, like the Water Bill, was presented by the Opposition as a measure that would lead to complete and utter disaster. That has turned out not to be the case: the measure widely and successfully improved transport services in this country. The Water Bill will do exactly the same for the water industry.
The Bill is wide-ranging and deals with the water industry and the countryside. I shall mention two specific matters which are sufficiently important to require the Bill to move to the statute book as quickly as possible, thereby greatly benefiting the British people.
First, the National Rivers Authority has been well debated in Committee and was mentioned again in the House by the hon. Member for Burnley.

Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend beseech the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) not to leave the Chamber, since he is now the only Back-Bench Labour Member in the Chamber who is on the Committee?

Mr. Burt: I would always beseech the hon. Member for Burnley to remain in his place because he is a good House of Commons man and picks up on much of what is said, but I am sure he would wish to hear me conclude my speech.
The National Rivers Authority is long overdue and has been welcomed in many places. The distinction between the utility and regulatory functions of water authorities has long been recognised but only this Government, with their establishment of the National Rivers Authority under the Bill, provide a true opportunity to hoist our standard of environmental care. Concerns about pollution and other matters will grow in the Europe of the 1990s. This country needs to respond and the National Rivers Authority provides a real opportunity to do so.
I believe, as many others have mentioned, that splitting the gamekeeper and poacher roles and the authority's national characteristics will ensure consistency of practice and standards, while not losing regional sensitivity. That, together with the tougher new controls on pollution introduced in the Bill, will benefit the British people and be welcomed by them.
Secondly, quite unnecessarily, scare stories have been mentioned about conservation and the loss of large tracts of land in the countryside. That is linked to the way in which bus deregulation was treated by Opposition Members.
To be honest, existing pressures on open space are likely to continue and will not ease. Concerns about the use of our environment will continue and we shall be continually dependent on our planning system to hold the ring.
The choices offered under such pressures are by no means as clear cut as they are sometimes presented in Committee. It is hard to balance the wishes and interests of growing numbers of people who wish to use open water areas for legitimate purposes with those of people who want no changes. It is difficult to balance the rights and beliefs of all constituents. It is dishonest and unfair to say that overnight, or at a stroke—to coin a phrase—vast amounts of water-gathering areas and areas in the national parklands will suddenly be consigned to 10-storey skyscrapers and the like for immediate commercial benefit.
I believe that that will not be the case, and I am strengthened in that belief by the work of the North West water authority—the authority for the area that I represent—which is looking forward to the freedom that privatisation will give it, and which says quite straightforwardly that there is no foundation for any fears that conservation and leisure activity on or around its land will suffer. Its commitment and record of achievement in the matter is well known to many people, and it makes the straightforward point that most of the land it owns consists of water-gathering areas that need to be saved and protected, and on which access and conservation will continue to be of great importance.
In short, this timetable motion provides for the progress of a Bill that is important to the British people. ft may be necessary for the House to consider at some stage in the future whether there are better methods of handling the ways in which Committees look at major public matters. But that is of secondary importance now; what is important is that the Leader of the House has offered a generous period for further consideration of the Bill, and that major matters will be considered, and that the measure, when it is on the statute book, will prove to be a major item that will make more certain the re-election of the Conservative party.

Mr. Richard Livsey: In the light of the time allocated under the guillotine to the Bill's Committee stage, it is quite clear that the word "generosity" has a different meaning in 1989 from that which it had previously. It is certainly my belief that less time has been allowed than in the case of other privatisations.
Guillotine motions have become a standard feature of the Government's legislative programme. Indeed, they seem to be coming forward earlier and earlier during the consideration of Bills. It has been estimated that the


Committee had considered the Water Bill for 75 hours, covering nine clauses, before the Government brought forward the motion. That is a considerably shorter period than was allowed on the two previous public utility privatisations. In the case of gas, 13 clauses had taken up 85 hours before the guillotine was brought in. In the case of British Telecom, over 100 hours of debate had taken place. The Government seem to be getting increasingly intolerant of the Opposition when it comes to allowing sufficient debate on subjects of such importance.

Mr. Keith Raffan: First, will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that it was the Liberal party that first introduced the guillotine into our procedures? Secondly, will he accept the consequence of what he is saying, which is that there will be even more microscopic scrutiny of the early clauses of a Bill and a mere passing glance at the remaining clauses unless the guillotine is introduced at a reasonably early stage?

Mr. Livsey: The point I was making is that this Bill has had even less time than other similar privatisation measures, and I do not think that that can be justified, given the size of the Bill. I gather that, with 180 clauses, it is one of the longest Bills in the history of this House.
One can, I believe, seek reasons for this guillotine. The date of 7 March seems to be crucial in the timetable; it is precisely one week before the Budget on 14 March, so the Chancellor can say in his Budget speech that asset sales in the financial year 1989–90 will include those of the water authorities. I believe that this is a consequence of the Government's dogmatic target of getting public spending below 40 per cent. of GDP. This Bill is very much part of that strategy. The timetable is not just in the House; it is elsewhere in the Government's programme also.
The consumer will pay for this privatisation and, indeed, is already doing so. The consumer will also pay by the sale of the assets. Indeed, most of the assets, as we have seen in Committee, are already vested in the plcs.
Another reason for the guillotine must surely be that the Secretary of State for the Environment nearly lost the Housing Bill last year; indeed, it was saved by only one day. I think there has been over-reaction by the Government in the timetabling of this Bill.
The irony of the guillotine motion is that it could be argued to be in the Government's interests to delay the flotation of the water industry. First, it is already known that they have backed down from selling all the water authority stock this year, for fear that the market may not be able to carry it. No wonder the water authorities are in need of such massive infrastructure investment that they do not offer good prospects for the investors.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the point that he has just made? As I understand it, no decision has been made on the flotation of the water industry. I think that the hon. Gentleman is really commenting on press speculation, which may, as is all too often the case, be totally inaccurate.

Mr. Livsey: It is therefore all the more important to persuade the Government of the wisdom of what I am saying.
The much larger electricity industry sale is just round the corner, with the danger that the two privatisations

together may be more than the City can handle. That, I think, is a genuine problem which the Government ought to consider. The Government are still in dispute with Brussels over drinking water standards, as reported in The Independent today. The uncertainty that the dispute causes can only damage the prospects for the sale. Assuming that the Commission wins through, the result could be an enormous clean-up bill for the industry—not exactly the best lure to potential investors. It is surprising that the Government want to go any further, any faster, with the confusion besetting the sale at present.
Secondly, there are still huge question marks over the Government's plans for the sale. The legality of the special share announced by the Secretary of State last month is in doubt in the light of European rulings on similar arrangements set up for Rolls-Royce. The special share arrangement is vital if the water authorities are to be given even the remotest chance of remaining in the hands of the communities they are supposed to serve. I strongly support the inclusion of a special share provision in this legislation—that is, if we have to suffer the legislation, though I am diametrically opposed to the privatisation of water on principle.
Although arrangements for a special share need not appear in the Bill, the Standing Committee should have a definitive answer on the legality of such a share. If it were to be ruled out, the Committee might consider other methods of control—for example, by giving extra compensatory powers to the Director General of Water Services or, indeed, the NRA itself.
Why, then, are the Government rushing the Bill through before the legal implications of their proposals in relation to article 2(3)(ii) of the treaty of Rome have been clarified? That gives us cause for concern.
Where will the money raised by the privatisation go? What benefit will the community receive that justifies rushing the Bill on to the statute book in such a manner? If the Government said that they actually needed the £7 billion from the sale of water to plough back into public investment—for example, to give a boost to infrastructure investment—perhaps we could have some sympathy for their position. In the Welsh Select Committee the other day—perhaps I should not mention where this information comes from—we discussed infrastructure development in France to the tune of £1·7 billion of investment in the railway system. The British Government ought to be considering the use of public money in intelligent ways to improve communications to the regions of Great Britain.
Britain is being systematically asset-stripped to finance the Government's short-term policies. Not content with selling the family silver, they are now proposing to rip out the plumbing as well. What will happen when there are no more assets to sell? That is the big question.
Guillotine debates, including a summary of a Bill's main points and its virtues from the Leader of the House, have become something of a ritual in recent years. In this debate such a summary of the Bill's main proposals is likely to be far more significant for what it does not contain than for what it contains. Crucially, it does not contain any mention of competition. Increasing competition and the possible benefits it can bring to the consumer can be the only justifications for considering privatisations. This Bill achieves neither. The water industry will remain as much of a monopoly after the Bill is passed. There will be no choice for the consumer. As a result the consumer will be in a worse position after


privatisation. For the 12 million consumers now supplied from the private sector the Bill has already had just that effect. The implications of the tight timetable for privatisation have led statutory water companies to announce price increases of 30 per cent. I believe that that is a sign of things to come.
It is reported in the newspapers that the Minister intends to call in the water companies about price increases. What does he intend to tell them? Does he accept that the consumer should not have to bear such price increases? Will he take any measures to reduce them? Does he accept that the rise is a direct consequence of the Bill?
It is ludicrous that this, the most controversial proposal before Parliament this Session, should be rushed through the House without adequate scrutiny by the elected representatives of the people. It only strengthens the case for wholesale reform of the workings of the House so that Bills are timetabled realistically, adequate time being provided to debate all their provisions. The House ought to revise its procedures so that its workings become more accessible to the electorate it serves, especially as television cameras are about to move in.
Most of all, the House should be elected under a fair electoral system. That is the only way in which to prevent a situation such as this. How is it that a Government elected on 42 per cent. of the vote can stifle debate on a measure which is opposed by 75 per cent. of the electorate—all in the name of democracy? In Wales, the Bill is opposed outright, as it is utterly unsuitable to my country. Welsh Water owns 66,000 acres of land in my constituency and my constituents do not want it to go into private hands.
In Committee last week, when we were debating clause 9, the Minister could give us no assurance about what would happen to water authority land if water plcs handed it to subsidiary companies. He could give no guarantee about its security or what would happen to it environmentally. I am, therefore, very happy to oppose the motion.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I apologise to the House for not being able to be present during the winding-up speeches because I shall be receiving treatment for an injured back, but I am glad to be able to contribute to the debate.
We have heard some interesting things from the Opposition. We have heard, for example, that there is no such thing as comparative competition. I think that we have it here in the Chamber at the moment. We have great competition among Conservative members of the Standing Committee for an opportunity to speak in the debate, whereas the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has had none. Such is the passionate, crusading, campaigning opposition of the Labour party to the Bill that it cannot be bothered to turn up. So much for the credibility of Labour Members of the Standing Committee.
I strongly support the timetable motion, not simply because a Government should be able to get their business through and implement their manifesto commitments, but because if we do not have such a motion, discussion of the Bill will become even more unbalanced than it already is. Without the motion, there will be an uneven distribution

of the Standing Committee's time. The early clauses will have been subjected to microscopic scrutiny while the vast bulk of the Bill will get merely a passing glance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said—he is one of seven Conservative members of the Standing Committee who are in the Chamber, as opposed to just one Labour—we have had more than 74 hours of debate in Committee. We have reached clause 9—only the end of part 1, which is described as the preliminary part of a five-part, 180 clause Bill.
The timetable motion will enable the Bill to be discussed in a structured way. It will allow much more disciplined discussion of the remaining clauses—many general points and points of principle having been debated at considerable length. I am sure that the Opposition agree that much remains to be discussed in detail. We have still to discuss the duties of water undertakers with respect to water supply and water quality, the provision of sewerage services, charges, the protection and management of rivers and other waters, the control of pollution and powers and duties in relation to the land.
The best work of the House is often produced under the pressure of a deadline. The Committee needs the pressure and, indeed, the discipline of a deadline to achieve an even and balanced discussion of all parts of the Bill—in other words, to do its job thoroughly and well.
The Water Bill is emphatically not one of those which has been rushed before the House and inadequately drafted, thus giving rise to the need for a host of Government amendments. Governments of all parties have done that from time to time. The Department of the Environment has examined the water industry in great detail for a considerable time, and the Bill has been prepared most carefully. The Opposition knew a great deal of what was likely to be in it, so there can be no justifiable opposition on those grounds.
Much of the opposition to the Bill is bogus. In many respects, the Bill does precisely what the Opposition have called for. The hon. Member for Burnley must have been promoted for being the only member of the Standing Committee to turn up as he appears to have joined the Opposition Front Bench. As he said, the Bill does much of what the Opposition have asked for by setting up the National Rivers Authority. The Government have listened to the Opposition's criticisms of previous privatisation measures and produced a regulatory framework which is heavier than has been found in any previous privatisation Bill. It will protect customers against excessive charges, reduced level of service and neglect of assets. It greatly strengthens the legal framework for setting standards of drinking water quality. It creates a powerful Director General of Water Services, who is independent of Ministers and accountable to Parliament. He will monitor the performance of water companies and ensure that they carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. He will have a network of regional customer service committees reporting directly to him.
The Bill also represents one of the most significant advances in environmental legislation during the past few years. The Opposition have, in effect, conceded that. The creation of the NRA shows just how much importance the Conservative party and Government attach to measures which protect the consumer and the environment Creating the NRA removes a glaring defect which has been highlighted as much by Opposition Members as by Members on this side of the House.
I am glad to see the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee present as he will endorse what I am saying. He will remember a report written some three years ago to which we put our names. It concerned the need to divide water authorities' responsibilities. They cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher—the monitor and discharger of sewage. We must separate those responsibilities if there is to be effective monitoring of pollution, and that is exactly what the NRA does.
One of the great fallacies of public ownership is that it protects the consumer. It gives no foolproof protection for the consumer, as the Camelford incident has so sadly shown. More blatant is the neglect of the last Labour Government. It was after that Government crawled humiliated to the International Monetary Fund for the biggest loan that it has ever given to the Government of any country—banana republics and Paraguay included—that they forced water authorities to cut capital spending on infrastructure by one third and, within that, to cut capital spending on sewerage infrastructure by one half.
Now, thanks to privatisation, water authorities will be freed from external financing limits. They will have access to the capital markets. They will therefore be able to accelerate their capital programmes to make up for the neglect of which the Opposition are so guilty. Should the nightmare occur—difficult though it is to conjure up, 10 years after the last time the Labour party was in power—and the Opposition were to form another Government, perform its usual economic miracle, run the economy into the ground and crawl again to the IMF, water authorities will not again be forced to cut spending on crucial infrastructure for water treatment and sewerage works.
I spoke earlier about the beneficial effect of the discipline of the deadline. The timetable motion will put pressure on all members of the Standing Committee to confine our remarks to what is strictly relevant. I do not believe that any debate has ever suffered from brief and succinct speeches. Nor has any Opposition been weakened by making their case concisely and to the point.
It is clear from examination of the first 17 sittings of the Committee that the timetable motion is likely to hasten not only the improvement in the quality of our water but also the quality and relevance of the speeches in Committee, particularly those by Opposition Members. We learnt more about the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) than we learnt from him. We learnt about his dexterity at fishing in netting 24 salmon last autumn in Scotland, accompanied by an extremely attractive blond friend. I add that this was his English setter Sam—before the News of the World reports anything else. Similarly, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) told us that his mother's maiden name was Owen and that his aunties and uncles were Evanses. We learnt about his admiration for Tommy Steele in "Half a Sixpence" and his crusade against undrinkable House of Commons tea, served in, "non-biodegradable bleached teacups".
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is not here. His contributions to the circulation of Tatler have already been mentioned in the House. I shall not repeat the details, but certainly he should receive a free annual subscription to that magazine for all he has done to promote circulation by distributing it widely to his

colleagues. We did not expect that to be their normal reading, but it is certainly an improvement on "Das Kapital". We heard the hon. Member for Brent, South reminiscing about nature study at school. He also commented obscurely about an obscure American economist called Schlieffer and gave us a delightful cameo about gloves, ending with the question:
How many of us have ever kept a pair of gloves for longer than five years?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 January 1989; c. 101.]
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who fleetingly passed through the Chamber a moment or two ago—one of the few Labour Back-Bench Members of the Standing Committee to attend this debate however briefly—informed us that when he was a teacher petrol was siphoned from his van in the staff car park.
The hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) managed to introduce into our debates and at some length the White Paper on the National Health Service. But although it was close, and there was certainly strong comparative competition among Opposition Members, the prize for irrelevance must go to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who intervened to keep us up to date on the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea.
All that was entertaining and illuminating, but it was hardly a debate on the Water Bill. The Standing Committee, and not least the Opposition Members on it, need the discipline of deadline that the timetable motion will provide so that we can now debate the Bill; not the Opposition'a extra-curricular activities, their schooldays, their obsessions with gloves or the magazine Tatler but the remaining 171 clauses of the Bill. That is what Conservative Members intend to do because that is what the nation wants.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I do not know whether it is a pleasure to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). As he mentioned the Select Committee report on pollution of coastal waters in Wales, it is vital to remind the Government that the key conclusion that we reached some three years ago was that the Department of the Environment had deliberately avoided the directive issued by the EEC in 1976 on coastal bathing waters by defining a beach occupied by a number of bathers so that not a single beach in Wales could be considered as coming under the terms of the directive. Such situations deeply worry the people of Wales and we scrutinise any Government measure with great trepidation.
The only possible reason that I can find for the timetable motion is the Government's deliberate and cynical desire to stifle debate and scrutiny of the Water Bill. To protect the principles of democracy, a guillotine motion must be used sparingly, and only when there is a clear national need for speedy decision making. There is no need for speed in the privatisation of water, only for expediency for the Government's convenience and avoidance of further discomfort.
The proposed privatisation of water has aroused the interest and concern of my constituents even more than the privatisation of gas and British Telecom. Like all hon. Members, I have received a great many representations about different aspects of the Water Bill. I have passed many of those representations to my hon. Friend the


Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) so that they can be raised and clarified in Committee. I have told my constituents that I have done that and promised to send them relevant copies of the Committee proceedings so that they will be fully informed of progress, of any successful amendments and of the outcome of their representations. The guillotine means that there will be inadequate time for scrutiny of all the major and contentious issues in the Bill. Guillotining the Standing Committee debate and the scrutiny of the Bill will therefore deprive my constituents of the right to that channel of representation.
There will be no time to discuss the inevitable higher price for water. Only last month, the Welsh water authority raised its charges by an average of 9·9 per cent. Because of the way it chose to impose those charges, occupiers of lower rateable value homes will pay substantially more than those in properties of higher rateable values.
On Saturday, a pensioner who is a widow brought to my surgery a pension book which she had just received which contained counterfoils for her pension increase in April. Each counterfoil was worth 15p. That is how much better off that lady would be in April, but the increase in her water rates will probably be more than 27p a week. So she need worry only about how she will find the money to meet price rises associated with 7 per cent. inflation, rate increases and electricity price increases in preparation for privatisation.

Mr. Ashby: Can the hon. Gentleman say what that counterfoil increase would have shown 10 years ago when inflation was a good deal more than 7 per cent.?

Mr. Wardell: I am not concerned with that, as I was not here 10 years ago. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was here then.
Last April, the Government said that anyone who was worse off by more than £2·50 a week would receive transitional payments. However, if those pensioners receive any increase in their pensions on 1 April it will be deducted from their transitional payments. That is happening to many constituents throughout the country.
I assume that the Department of Social Security issued my constituent with an additional book rather than amending the current one because it will be easier to withdraw the new book than to re-amend the existing book when housing benefit is cut again.
After reading today's newspapers there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the water sell-off will mean much higher water hills. Water metering—a process that Welsh Water seems to be against—needs to be discussed and made clear in every detail. In addition, it is important for the Government to spell out whether, if authorities such as Welsh Water intend to move to a system that relies increasingly on raising the standing charge element of the water bill, they are considering the introduction of some sort of sliding scale for rebates similar to that proposed for the community charge.

Mr. Raffan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the increase in charges has nothing to do with privatisation and everything to do with improving water quality and standards?

Mr. Wardell: I cannot agree with that for the obvious reason. Over the past few years, the Government have

placed an external financing limit on water authorities which means that they have been unable to borrow on the open market to the extent to which they would have liked. As a consequence, they have been unable to finance their capital investment from borrowing on the open market and have had increasingly to resort to raising the money through current charges. The increase in water charges has come largely from the imposition by bodies such as the Welsh Office of external financing limits which have forced water authorities to cut back on their investment and to raise the money almost solely from current water charges.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Is the hon. Gentleman disapproving of the increased capital spending proposed by the Welsh water authority for next year?

Mr. Wardell: Not at all. I am saying that over the past few years, the Government have been deliberately preventing the water authority from borrowing money for financing its investment. Now that privatisation is about to be carried out, the Government have permitted that borrowing to take place.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct, does he not welcome the Government's privatisation proposals? It will free the Welsh water authority and others from public sector borrowing restraints.

Mr. Wardell: The Minister has missed the point. The Government imposed the external financing limit and are now saying how great it is that they are removing it. If they had not imposed it in the first place, the argument would be unnecessary, as would privatisation.

Mr. Ashby: I asked the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back 10 years in respect of one matter. Would he do the same in respect of this matter? Will he say whether there were any constraints on public expenditure in 1978 under a Labour Government?

Mr. Wardell: I do not want to look back 10 years. I have only to look at this Conservative Administration to know that what is happening leaves a tremendous amount to be desired.
The Government are careless of public opinion and concern at any time other than during the nine months when they are giving birth to their pre-election programme. The Government's large majority is making them complacent and that complacency shows in the fact that they have made no concessions so far in Standing Committee. They have accepted none of the amendments that have been proposed.
A press statement for Wales was issued on 11 January, perhaps because the Secretary of State feels that he may be answerable to the press in a way that he is not answerable to the House. The statement said that because there is a need to keep Welsh water Welsh, individual shareholders will be allowed a maximum holding of 15 per cent in the new plc, unless or until a 75 per cent. majority of the shareholders vote otherwise. What a meaningless sop. Even if that is legal under European law, it is clearly in the interests of shareholders to vote to end that restriction as soon as possible if they want to maximise the price of their shares. That is surely the purpose of their investment. If a


French company or a large institution came along with a juicy offer for 25 per cent. of the shares, the shareholders would fall over themselves to register their vote in favour.
The Secretary of State for Wales has felt no need to justify to the press or the House the erosion of Welsh Office powers and responsibilities brought about by the Bill. It is clear that at present the Welsh water authority is responsible to the Welsh Office. After privatisation the National Rivers Authority committees and agencies in Wales will be directly responsible to the central NRA committee, which is responsible to the Department of the Environment. The Secretary of State for Wales may have an input in the deliberations, but he will no longer be responsible for a range of functions associated with the NRA such as river and beach pollution control, drinking water quality control and environmental amenities and access, all of which are regarded as extremely important by the people of Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, it is clear that he is not fully aware of the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales. I have produced a digest of those powers and responsibilities which has been sent to all Committee members. I would he happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. Wardell: I thank the Minister for that and I am glad that he intends to send me that information. Of course, it would have been helpful if he had sent a copy of the digest to all Opposition Members so that we could fully understand the point that he is trying to make.
It took the scrutiny of the Committee to reveal the major defect in the Bill. The Government have squirmed and wriggled and wasted valuable scrutiny time. They have not taken on board any of the proposed amendments, which were reasonably and rationally put to them. Now they propose to limit that scrutiny time. It is clear from the Committee proceedings that the Government do not intend to accept any amendments. They will not concede that there is a need for the NRA to be up and running with its complex structures and its obvious teething troubles ironed out before the plcs are given free rein. Committee members wanted to give the NRA a year's head start. Clearly, there is a need for that. Mr. Keith Court, chairman of South West Water, has been talking about finding ways of outwitting the NRA and Mr. Gordon Jones, chairman of Yorkshire Water and of the Water Authorities Association, said in the magazine Agenda—vol. 2, No. 7—that the duty of experienced water industry executives is to be responsible to their shareholders, not consumers.
The Government will not concede that there is a need clearly to state the relationship and responsibilities of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution and the National Rivers Authority beyond saying that they are clearly complementary. Of course, we know that. We know, too, that the inspectorate is being starved of cash and staff so that the Government can claim that it is ineffective and can cast it off completely. The Government are now not even prepared to concede the most eminently sensible step of ensuring that those proposals in the Bill, which would clearly be governed by European law, are scrutinised by specialists to ensure that they are legal before being

enacted by the House. That is petty minded, arrogant nonsense. The Government have said that they will listen to further representations about access to open spaces—some of the most beautiful areas of Britain are at present owned by water authorities—but they have not accepted amendments which would largely meet those problems.
The Government have made no concessions regarding the adoption of unadopted and unadoptable sewers, which is a problem not just for my constituents, but for thousands of householders, and it is a matter which I have raised in this House on many occasions. The Minister, as a Llanelli boy, will know that problem well, but all that he promised in the Standing Committee was that he would write to the Law Society. That is the limit of what the Government are prepared to do. I do not know whether the Minister's Department has received a reply from the Law Society, but I believe that it is ridiculous that, in privatising water, the Government are prepared to let the practice continue whereby developers are required to build to building regulation standards which are different from those standards laid down by water authorities. Here was an opportunity for the Government to do something about it, and at least to protect future householders by ensuring that when they bought their properties they knew what they were buying. The Government have chosen not to take that opportunity. All that they have done is to write to the Law Society. A lot of writing must have gone on, but few results appear to have emerged.
No concessions have been made regarding the role and powers of the new Director General of Water Services. I am fascinated to find out, if this measure is passed, whether—in the same way that British Telecom and Sir Bryan Carsberg have effectively devised a formula for pricing British Telecom charges—the formula applied will be K plus RPI or K minus RPI.
Obviously, in proposing this guillotine, the Government are merely saying that—because they are not prepared to amend the Bill, to make any concession to legitimate representations of concern from the public, to listen to any argument, or to brook any opposition from any quarter—there is no point in the Standing Committee spending time scrutinising the Bill. Perhaps the Government are worried about what other foul-ups the Standing Committee might find. It is certainly apparent that so complacent, arbitrary and dictatorial have the Government become that they cannot even be bothered to go through the motions of complying with EEC laws, of listening, of making accommodations or of achieving consensus. Such words are like a foreign language to the Cabinet.
I remind Conservative Members that the people of this country regard water as free and as a natural, national asset. They do not yet believe that the Prime Minister controls our rainfall. They very much resent her belief that she can make them pay through the nose for something that they already own and to which they have rights. For the man or woman in the street, this Bill is about paying lots more to a few shareholders for something that they already have and own. Conservative Members believe that they and their leader know what is best for us all and that, if we do not like it, we can lump it. I would urge right hon. and hon. Members to think twice before acting in such a high-handed roughshod manner as guillotining legitimate procedure, scrutiny and representation about such an important Bill.

Mr. James Pawsey: We have listened to the usual ritual argument against the timetable motion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) went on at some length about it. It is fair to remind the House that all Governments have had recourse to that measure. There is little virtue in Opposition Members adopting holier-than-thou attitudes, as they have this afternoon, especially when one recalls that it was the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who in one day—20 July 1976—actually guillotined five separate and major bills. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I hear the expressions of dismay and almost complete disbelief from my hon. Friends. Who could really believe that an Opposition Member could act in such an undemocratic fashion?

Mr. Ashby: They forget themselves.

Mr. Pawsey: Clearly, 20 July 1976 must be a black day in the annals of the Labour party since, if it seeks to condemn this Administration—as the hon. Member for Gower did—for what they are doing today, what must have been its thoughts on 20 July 1976? Clearly, whatever thoughts it had were kept well to itself, because those measures were driven through this House by a three-line Whip and supported by Opposition Members.
I shall deliberately not use the word "hypocrisy" to describe the comments made by Opposition Members.

Mr. Knapman: Why not?

Mr. Pawsey: I shall answer my hon. Friend. That would make me out of order. I shall, however, leave that unspoken thought to work upon the consciences of Opposition Members.
The Water Bill is a large and important measure. It has 180 clauses and 24 schedules and so far we have completed only nine clauses and four schedules in 74 hours. It might be thought by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the reason for the slow progress was the overwhelming dedication shown by Opposition Members. Sadly, that is not entirely the case. I shall provide hon. Members with just two samples from one day's proceedings in Standing Committee D. The quotations that I shall use will provide a mere flavour—a gentle taste—of our discussions on one day only. I shall refer to the 14th sitting held on the morning of Tuesday 31 January. The Committee, or at least Conservative Members, listened with rapt attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). They were briefly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). It is worthwhile quoting some of the hon. Gentleman's comments on that morning. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place. He said:
This is the Mother of Parliaments…but tea is sold here in non-biodegradable, bleached plastic cups. Is that appropriate for the Mother of Parliaments? The plastic cup damages the environment, and the tea in it is also damaging. My tea was cold and it was poured from a flask. It was also undrinkable. The Mother of Parliaments should not treat in this way those at the hub of its legislative programme, when a cup of tea is served at one's desk in the meanest town hall.
I responded to the hon. Gentleman's comments as I have an interest in this matter as a non-executive director of the group that manufactures the cups that he described. The

hon. Member for Bootle proceeded truly to amaze the Committee with the depth and breadth of his wisdom on medieval affairs when he said:
We should like to see the British landscape of William Tell"—
[Laughter] The House will not be surprised to learn that the reaction of the Committee was precisely the same. The hon. Gentleman said:
We should like to see the British landscape of William Tell, Robin Hood and Maid Marian. William Tell was a regular visitor to British forests, and used to hunt as a guest of the King of England.
Hon. Members may share my belief that William Tell was a Swiss hero and a republican to boot. The thought of him hunting as a guest of the King of England beggars imagination.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) gave away the depth and breadth of his knowledge when he said of William Tell:
The television series was certainly made in this country."? [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 31 January 1989; c. 626, 629.]

Mr. Pawsey: Yes. That day will be long remembered by those of us who had the pleasure to listen to those contributions.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is not in his place, but it is worth while bringing out the flavour of his contribution that day, which was also touched upon by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). The hon. Member for Brent, South said:
When we look at these matters it is helpful to look at the Conservative party's hidden agenda…revealed in a magazine…It is the Tatter a magazine such as one would find at the the dentist's or the doctor's. It tells of the fads, foibles, fancies and doings of the upper classes…The Tatter has changed in recent years. It is no longer a harmless and innocent publication. It has become the house journal of the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman developed his case by saying:
there are the fashions of Imogen Inglis-Jones and Nathalie Mountain, who are pictured in various fishing positions…the Tatter is the real house journal of the Conservative party. It is the Conservatives' equivalent of Marxism Today, shorn of some of the ideological pretensions of that magazine."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 31 January 1989;c. 670–1.]
If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gairisborough and Horncastle): The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is a member of the upper middle classes. He is the son of a barrister and a lawyer himself'. Does my hon. Friend agree that he revealed his class origins when he assumed that Taller was the common preserve of dentists' waiting rooms in Bootle, Burnley or Sunderland?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a typically telling point.
I have made a genuinely important discovery. The hon. Member for Brent, South is an amusing and entertaining raconteur, but his comments do not always appear to be totally relevant to the clauses under discussion. Yet another of his more diverting digressions was when he said that Fred Jarvis was a ghillie employed by some anonymous laird. The idea of Fred Jarvis being a ghillie is most unlikely. In my capacity as chairman of the Conservative party's parliamentary education committee I


have met Fred Jarvis on a number of occasions and I would have thought that he would make an unlikely, unwilling, unhelpful and unco-operative ghillie.
I have greatly enjoyed the contributions from the hon. Member for Brent, South. They burst like a ray of sunshine into the dullness of our winter days. If that does not damage his chances of reselection, nothing will.
The House may ask what is the relevance of my observations about the hon. Members for Bootle and Brent, South to the Water Bill.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Quite right.

Mr. Pawsey: Well, they are the quotes from your hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pawsey: I beg your pardon, Sir. Although Opposition Members may seek somewhat obtuse connections with the quotes, you may think, Mr Speaker, that they represent a prime example of time-wasting or tautology on a massive and original scale. I am not seeking to suggest that Opposition Members have been involved in any deliberate time-wasting. In their case it would probably be unnecessary since they have an ability, indeed a talent, to meander round a subject rather as an old, silted-up river meanders round a landscape.
I must make it clear that I have enjoyed the contributions from the hon. Members for Brent, South and Bootle in much the same way as I enjoy those of Jasper Carrott or Lenny Henry. I hesitate to say that I enjoy Victoria Wood lest I be misunderstood. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen, however, could earn even better livings were they to join the ranks of Equity.
I have given the House an all too brief flavour of some of the contributions made to Standing Committee D—a sort of hors d'oeuvres to the main course. To be able to enjoy, and in good time, the main part of the feast, it is necessary to introduce a timetable measure. It will be recalled that the Water Bill was a central plank of the Conservative party manifesto of 1987. I need scarcely remind the House that, on the strength of that manifesto, the Government were returned for an unprecedented third term and with a substantial majority. Therefore, it seems that the British people are anxious to see this Bill enacted with the establishment of a National Rivers Authority and a new statutory framework for the control of drinking water and of river quality.
The Bill provides the terms of appointment and financial arrangements for the new limited companies to provide water and sewerage services in England and Wales. One of the things that I particularly welcome—it was touched upon by one of my hon. Friends earlier—is the appointment of a Director General of Water Services. He will be the consumers' white knight.
The Bill will ensure better value for money and more efficient service. The quicker it is enacted the better and that is why I support this motion.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Having listened to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I wish that I had been invited to join the Committee on the Water Bill, because it seems that it is the place where learning is combined with a great deal of pleasure.
The Leader of the House gave the game away when he said that, so far, the debate in Committee had not resulted in any excessive filibustering, but there was a need to curtail the examination of the Bill because the Government needed to get the legislation through to offload the shares in the new water companies during the forthcoming financial year. It seems that profit is being placed before the public interest and that the rights and needs of consumers have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
There seems to be no good reason for rushing the examination of the Bill. Even if we were to continue at the same rate it could still be on the statute book well before the next election. Despite the time being given to the Bill by the guillotine motion, inevitably some parts of the measure will not be discussed in the detail that is necessary. As some hon. Members have been at pains to point out, huge sections of the Bill have not been scrutinised. I could reel off at least a dozen such areas, but I shall not do so because the time allowed for this debate precludes that possibility.
I should like to look at one or two areas of great concern. The first is European Community legislation. That raises two issues and the first relates to any regulation that might be introduced about the nature of the shareholdings. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will tell us whether the proposal for a golden share in the case of the English companies and a 15 per cent. maximum holding in the Welsh company is completely acceptable to the Commission in Brussels.
The next issue is water quality. Over the last 18 months I have asked several questions about the quality of tap water and bathing water, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) have recently put down some written questions on these subjects. So far, the answers have been fudged, to say the least. I have been told that bathing water quality on the majority of our beaches does not come up to the EEC water quality standards and that the Commission, the Government and the water authorities are discussing a programme to enable all beaches to be brought up to standard in an appropriate time.
In answer to one of my questions to a Minister in the Welsh Office, I was told that there was a 15-year programme for Wales. From my knowledge of the Commission I know that would be far too long. Before the Bill is completed we ought to know the exact programme for bringing all the beaches up to the European Community standard and we should know how much that will cost. That will be a great deal of expenditure for the new shareholders. The same can be said about tap water quality, although not so much in Wales because I have been assured by the Welsh Office that all water supplies will be up to standard by 1992. There still has not been an answer to that question about the position in England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) alluded to the National Rivers Authority. There will be no separate National Rivers Authority for Wales, even though the Welsh people want to see such an authority. I


remind Conservative Members that, given that there is a separate Welsh water authority, the will of the Welsh people at the last election was clearly not to see that part of the Conservative manifesto carried out. I hope that Conservative Members and the Government will take account of that.
The one good thing about the Bill up to the weekend was that the Government has introduced no amendments. On today's Order Paper there are 10. I do not know whether the trickle will become a flood, but I hope not, because it would make the guillotine even more of an injustice.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: To date the course of this ill-attended debate has been that those who oppose the Bill oppose the guillotine, and those who support the Bill support the guillotine. I have to break that pattern, because I am not a supporter of the Bill. However, I think that a timetable motion is the best way to ensure that what is undeniably an immensely important Bill is properly considered before being presented to the House for Third Reading.
I notice that under the timetable motion three and a half days—that is two days plus two periods of two hours—are allocated to Report and Third Reading. I hope that the Business Committee will allocate sufficient time for Third Reading, because hon. Members who abstained on Second Reading may wish to participate significantly on Third Reading in order to share with the House their reasons for deciding to vote for, or against, Third Reading.
In parenthesis, I hope that the reason for the Secretary of State's absence from the Front Bench is that he has left the House to reply to a letter that I wrote to him not weeks, but months ago inquiring about whether in the privatised water industry it would or would not be a criminal offence to supply water that is not potable. Many hon. Members will know that if water gets into milk during its production, even with no guilty intention, the farmer is automatically guilty of a criminal offence even if the milk is not thereby rendered unwholesome. It would be quite scandalous for us to pass into law a Bill privatising water that gave water companies exemption from such a criminal provision. I hope that that will be one of the matters discussed either in Committee or on Report.
In the last Parliament the Procedure Committee paid considerable attention to the public Bill procedure. We decided—I say "we" because I was then and am now a member of that Committee—to recommend to the House that if it seemed probable that a Bill would spend more than 40 hours in Committee, it should be timetabled right from the beginning instead of having to go through a ritual dance, hilarious examples of which have been given by some of my hon. Friends, so as to waste enough time in conventional wisdom to "justify" the adoption of a timetable. The Select Committee on Procedure said that it would be much better to timetable the Bill from the beginning, so that all its important provisions could be properly examined. That is not just for the benefit of the Opposition. Often the drafting of clauses has consequences unforeseen by the draftsman and unintended by the Minister. That is avoided only by going carefully through a Bill. The motion will have my support, even though the Bill does not, because I acknowledge the

importance of the Bill, and wish to see it examined as it ought to be, and believe that a timetable motion is the proper instrument for that.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) opposed the timetable motion in totality, thereby rejecting completely the proposition of the Select Committee on Procedure. Speaking for the official Opposition, he did not say that the timetable ought to have one more allotted day for Report or Third Reading, or 10 more hours in Committee, which might have been a sustainable argument—I do not know, because he did not deploy it. Had he deployed it, seeing that I am uncommitted on the Bill, I might have found myself of that opinion. He has not put to the House any judgment that the time for the Committee stage should be longer, or that more time should be allocated for Report or Third Reading. Therefore, he has placed all of us in the position where we have to vote for this motion as it stands, on the basis—because it is this that he has asked us to accept or reject—of whether a better Bill will emerge as a result of this timetable motion.
It has been my fate, Mr. Speaker, in the last few debates in which I have had the good fortune to catch your eye, to speak for three minutes on the last occasion and four and a half on the one before. I have not found myself greatly constrained by that. It is the experience of many hon. Members that the discipline of time enables them to say what they need to say. There is a story—I forget which pope it is about—that shows quite a lot of wisdom. The pope received in audience three visitors. Of each he asked the same question, "How long are you staying in the eternal city?" The first said, "Three months, Your Holiness." "You will see a little bit in that time," said the pope. The next replied, "Three weeks." The pope said, "You will see a lot of it in three weeks." The last replied, "Three days, Your Holiness." "You will see everything worth seeing in three days," replied the pope.
I have been in the House for 28 years, and I have never been to the Royal Mint—it has now left London—I have never seen many things in London. I am convinced that the Procedure Committee's experiment, which it recommended to the House, of having a 10-minute limit on speeches has been justified by events, and the vast majority of Members would like to see that extended to most, if not all, debates on the Floor of the House. The same logic is compellingly appropriate of the Committee stage of Bills. The discipline of a timetable structured by the Business Committee, not imposed willy-nilly by the Government, is the only proven method of securing proper detailed examination of the Bill so that, whether its general principles do or do not commend themselves to the whole House, better legislation will result than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that short speeches can be effective, and I intend to make mine extremely short. The Government have to guillotine the Bill because it sets out their policy and they want to get it through its stages. However, it raises many important issues. The timetable set out in the motion would not allow enough time to deal with some of the major problems such as the complications of the EEC factor and of the codes of practice, how that is applied to successor companies and to


land disposed to third parties, and what is the definition of operational and non-operational land. The Committee is only just getting to grips with some of these issues.
We must explore all these issues in greater depth. For example, we must examine consumer rights, charges, how capital is raised for improvement—through revenue charges or borrowing—water metering, the kind of meters to be used, who will pay for them, how much they will cost, what access will be allowed and what protection there will be for the low paid, the unemployed and retired people, particularly if their water is cut off in times of financial stress. These are all major issues in a major Bill.
Some Conservative Members are as concerned about some of these issues as we are. However, those who are driving through this Bill and its guillotine do not care one jot about the implications to the environment, water quality, consumer rights and consumer protection. All they care about is dogma and ideology. In their minds, anything privatised is good and anything public is bad. The water companies were set up by public institutions and public bodies, often as a result of falure of private companies, and their record is not bad. What about compensation for the ratepayers who set up the water companies and the waterworks that are now being sold off to the private sector without any compensation?
We must examine all these issues in great depth, and the guillotine will not allow that.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I found the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) extremely interesting. I hope that, when and if he receives a reply to his letter from the Secretary of State, he will publish it so that we can see the interesting comments that the Secretary of State might have to make.
Guillotines can often be justified—for example, when major legislation needs to be rushed through the House because it is urgent, although usually there is co-operation from both sides of the House in such circumstances. Guillotines can also be justified, and have been found necessary, when delays have been caused. Many of the debates about guillotine motions have concentrated on whether a Committee has been making progress and whether there is undue delay. It is clear that there has been no undue delay in the Committee considering the Water Bill. For example, the Committee did not debate the sittings motion. The Opposition did not object to the doubling of our sittings, even though that was done from the second day of the Committee stage. We have not swamped the Amendment Paper with minor or trivial amendments or wasted time with unnecessary votes and points of order. The Government have not been forced to move closures on any of our debates on clauses or amendments. As the Leader of the House accepted, there have been no unduly long speeches from Labour Members.
This is an important and serious Bill. The Leader of the House also acknowledged that our discussions in Committee have been serious and concerned important matters such as the National Rivers Authority, which has taken up most of our discussions so far. Every attempt that we have made to strengthen the NRA has been rejected

quite blatantly by the Government, who do not seem interested in ensuring that that body has the strength, resources and staffing that it requires.
Many other important issues have to be discussed. My hon Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned some of them. The Leader of the House gave us a list of those items that he thought ought to be discusssed, such as a customer services committee, drinking water quality, control of pollution, sewerage, flood defence, all of which we agree are important. On which of those does the Leader of the House think that we should skimp our debates? There will not be enough time to discuss all those issues as fully as they should be discussed. By giving us that list, the Leader of the House proved the point that the timetable will not give us sufficient time to do so.
Even the Leader of the House has admitted that there has been no undue delay in Committee. On the other hand, there is much evidence and a great deal of proof of undue haste on the Government's part. Second Reading took place on about the first possible day. Consideration in Committee started on the first day possible. We have a guillotine motion after fewer than 75 hours of debate in Committee. The Government are pushing ahead with this pretty desperate timetable when they still appear not to know the final outcome of their legislation.
The Government were forced to withdraw their plans for the privatisation of the water industry in 1986 because of the outcry that then took place, and did so in a typical hole-in-the-corner way. A statement was wrung out of them by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on a Thursday evening at 10 o'clock—it was obvious that the Government wanted the minimum notice taken of their withdrawal. Despite the rejection in 1986, and despite having two years to consider the matter—the Government have had two years to get their proposals right and to acquire answers to all questions—confusion still reigns in Government circles when it comes to their plans and the consequences of them. Ministers are still unable to come up with the answers.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Lady may say that undue delay has not taken place in Committee, but 75 hours have been spent in Committee and only nine clauses have been covered. Does she accept that if she and her team had proceeded at a more reasonable pace and achieved much greater progress, as they could have done, the Government would then not have had a good case for introducing a guillotine motion? Alternatively, is the hon. Lady happy that the Government have introduced the motion?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that the Leader of the House dealt with that question in his remarks. He acknowledged that there had not been undue delay. Indeed, he said that we have been discussing important issues in Committee, as we have.
The issue that is concerning many is prices. The Leader of the House said earlier today that the Bill would greatly benefit consumers, but that was a completely inept remark to make today, of all days. The Secretary of State told us on 28 November 1988 at column 450 that we could expect water prices to rise in real terms between 7·5 per cent. and 12·5 per cent. by the end of the century. Last week, the water authorities announced increases of up to 13 per cent. This weekend, the statutory water companies told us that their price increases would be about 30 per cent., and even


as much as 50 per cent. When we warned of these increases in December we were told that we were scaremongering, but now we have the reality. We are faced with the greatest price increases ever.
It is no use the Minister saying that he will call in the water companies. I am sure that we are all impressed by that! I am sure also that we know exactly what the Minister will say. If he takes the advice of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) he will say, "I say, chaps, can't you turn this down a bit?" The fact is that the Minister cannot control the water companies. They are not accountable directly to him, any more than the new privatised water companies that replace the water authorities will be directly accountable to him or, more important, to the House.
The position is worse than that. The Department of the Environment is implicated in the price increases that we have heard about from the water companies during the weekend. In December, Ernst and Whinney was appointed by the water companies to advise them on the run-up to privatisation. It wrote to the companies, giving the advice that they faced their last opportunity to increase tariffs before privatisation. It also advised each company to raise its tariffs to the maximum level permitted, which is what the companies have done. The letter stated:
Following a meeting arranged by the Water Companies Association today with the Department of the Environment … it was agreed that I should write to you on an immediate basis to let you know of points which were agreed at that meeting.
It is clear that the Department and the accountants were working together before advising the water companies to take the action which they announced during the weekend.
Of course, this is only round 1. There are plenty of other additional costs for the consumer that are still to come. We shall soon be seeing flashy adverts on television, for which we shall all have to pay. There will be the costs of flotation, which the City will not have to meet. It has already received £700 million from taxpayers. There will be the extra costs of higher management salaries, to which some in the industry are looking forward. There may be other costs, including, perhaps, VAT. None of us minds paying a bit more for a better service and better pollution control, but we mind paying a privatisation surcharge which is entirely avoidable and wholly unnecessary. We face enormous additional costs because of the Government's obsession with pushing every industry, however vital, into the private sector, where profit will be the first priority. As the director of the Water Companies Association said, the Government's proposals will put them under an obligation to put the shareholders first. There is no doubt about the consequences for prices.
There is no great doubt about the proportion of the industry that will be owned by the private sector after flotation in November. Will all the industry be owned by the private sector? Will 51 per cent. of it be so owned, or will the percentage be something between that and 100 per cent? How will the industry he sold? Will it be sold directly, through a holding company, or one region at a time? Will water supply be sold before sewerage? The Under-Secretary of State told us in Committee that no decisions have yet been taken, but it is now February. The motion is before us because of the urgency of the Government's privatisation plans, but they still cannot answer some basic questions.
Perhaps the Minister for Water and Planning will be able to tell us what will happen to the industry's debts. Are they to be redistributed? Will they be written off in part or in full? How much will it cost the taxpayer if and when debts are written off? What will happen with the Government's merger policy? On 11 January, the Secretary of State announced his policy. He promised that the necessary amendments would be with us as soon as possible, and I understand that the Government are tabling them today. Perhaps our debate in Committee on Thursday 2 February brought some good. We have still not been told, however, whether the amendments have been cleared with Brussels. There has been no confirmation of clearance. That is not surprising, as clearance has not yet been obtained. We adhere to the legal advice that we have received that the Government proposals may infringe European competition law.
The Secretary of State assured us that he would not ask the Committee to proceed with a matter that was in doubt. Clearance and many other matters are still much in doubt or unanswered, yet the Government are pushing ahead with the guillotine motion. Rather than guillotining the Bill tonight, the Government should suspend consideration of it in Committee until they answer vital questions. We shall oppose their motion.

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): In a previous privatisation guillotine motion debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that his view on guillotines was consistent; when he was in government he was for them, when he was in opposition he was against them. From what we have seen of the way in which the Opposition have organised themselves in Committee, it will be a long time before my right hon. and hon. Friends need to be against a guillotine motion.
We have heard some excellent speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) made an exceptionally thoughtful speech. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). We shall certainly take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about Third Reading and do what we can to accommodate him. I am very sorry that he has not received a reply to his letter. I will look into that. He may find clause 51 of the Bill helpful in answering his point.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the time that has already been spent examining the Bill. He referred to the two full days—11½ hours—devoted to Second Reading. So far we have spent nearly 75 hours in Committee discussing nine clauses. Under the terms of the proposed timetable motion, there would be a further 78 hours in Committee making a total of 153 hours in Committee. That would be followed by three days on Report and Third Reading making a further 23½ hours and by then the House will have spent nearly 200 hours considering the Bill. By any standards, that is a generous amount of time.
The hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that that was not sufficient time to consider the various provisions in the Bill. Anyone present during the


proceedings in Committee would greet that assertion with astonishment. Even under the stern chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), time has been found, as many of my hon. Friends have explained, for many diversions, some more entertaining than others.
During the debate on clause 1, we were treated to a biology lesson by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). He told us how to test for chlorophyl—the stuff, as he put it, that makes leaves green. We also heard about the greatest ghillie in the world, called Fred Jarvis, although we did not quite discover his connection with anyone with a similar name.
The hon. Member for Brent, South seemed to gain particular pleasure from using Tatler as one of his great source documents for his contributions in Committee. However, he did not acknowledge that the editor of that magazine is the sister of my hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).

Mr. Boateng: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that it was Tatler which set the tumbrels rolling in relation to this guillotine motion? He knows full well that no matter whether that magazine is edited by the sister of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—and I understand that that editorship has caused a certain amount of embarrassment in the hon. Gentleman's household—its production during our Committee proceedings was highly relevant because it is geared to the parvenus and parasites who populate the modern Conservative party. It represents the greed and avarice which are the very motors of this Bill. We were right to reveal the true motives.

Mr. Howard: The Tatler certainly set the tone for the hon. Gentleman's contributions to our deliberations.
For the most part, the Committee deliberations were highly entertaining stuff. However, they are highly inconsistent with the picture that Opposition Members have sought to paint today of a Standing Committee desperate to stuff every available minute with scrupulous scrutiny of every sub-clause, but which was starved of the time to do that.
When we debated the Bill on the Floor of the House, I described the Labour party as the "say no" party. I suggested that it said no to change, new ideas and to any constructive proposals designed to improve the conditions of our people. Having listened attentively to the arguments, or what passed for arguments, advanced during almost 75 hours in Committee and in today's debate, I have been reflecting on that. The Labour party is not simply the "say no" party; it is also the "go slow" party.
Let us examine the Labour party's record in Committee. Almost the first act of Labour Members was to table amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the names of the entire Opposition first team for the Bill. Amendment No. 1 was to pave the way for amendment No. 2 which was intended to delay the appointment of the new water and sewerage undertakers for at least five years. Unfortunately for them, their futile attempt to wreck the Bill was completely transparent. The amendments were not selected for debate. Then they put their names to

amendment No. 33 which would have delayed our plans for only one year. The amendment told us to go slowly and they proceeded to do just that in Committee. We spent one and a half sittings debating that amendment. That was just the first of the delays. It took us the best part of seven sittings—nearly 27 hours—before we even moved away from clause 1 and its accompanying schedule. That was the pace that the Opposition set for consideration of the Bill in Committee and that pace has not significantly improved.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does not the Minister think that the establishment of the National Rivers Authority was important?

Mr. Howard: It was extremely important. Its importance could have been better dealt with by more relevant and pointed debate rather than the debate which took place. I hope that the House will not be taken in by the points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. She tried to suggest that the Opposition's points were made in a genuine attempt to strengthen the powers of the NRA.
The hon. Lady's motives were made clear in an interview she gave to the Financial Times on 7 December 1988, which states:
Her response is to try to ensure that the final shape of the legislation will incorporate so many new consumer and environmental safeguards and restraints that it will be unattractive to the private sector.
That was not because she was really interested in the safeguards, but because she wanted to use the Committee stage to sabotage the whole principle of the Bill which had been granted a Second Reading by the House.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) spoke most eloquently against the guillotine on the Bill. Will my hon. and learned Friend speculate on whether she spoke as eloquently against the guillotine on the Wales Bill when she was an assistant Whip on 18 July 1978? Her right hon. Friend the Member for Iswlyn (Mr. Kinnock), who is now the leader of the Labour party, said at the time:
We are faced with an abbreviated guillotine on a runt of a Bill. The only reason why this Bill exists is in order to legitimise the panic that the Government"—[Official Report, 18 July 1978; Vol. 954, c. 448–49.]
find themselves in.

Mr. Howard: I am relieved that my hon. Friend relieves me of the necessity to speculate on the hon. Lady's attitude on that occasion. I am sure that the leader of the Labour party will bear in mind the contrast—[Interruption.] I was not paying the Leader of the Opposition that accolade, but I am sure that he will comment on the contrast between his attitude and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister accept that in Committee many beneficial points have been made upon which the Government have given assurances on questions relating to disablement, the environment and the Secretary of State for Wales? Had such a guillotine motion affected the first part of our deliberations in Committee, we would not have given such attention to the benefit of the Bill.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman deserves an accolade for having spoken longer than anyone else in Committee. I will happily pay him that tribute, if tribute it is.
Yes, of course, the Government have taken note of many of the observations made in Committee. We have


said that it will be appropriate to reflect on some matters. However, in almost every instance, the Government responded in that way to short debates that were relevant and to the point. Those debates secured the objectives that the Committee was entitled to see achieved; they were not achieved by the verbose meandering and irrelevant debates which repeated points that it was clear would not be accepted.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a sour little speech at the opening of the debate, and asked for a number of answers that had already been given in Committee—and some of his questions were repeated during the debate. The hon. Gentleman asked about the golden share. There is no mystery about it—I made the position abundantly clear in Standing Committee. We do not anticipate any difficulty whatsoever in relation to the golden share, as we have said more than once.

Mr. Dobson: Are we to give as much weight to the hon. and learned Gentleman's anticipation concerning the value of the golden share as we are asked to give his anticipation that water prices will rise by about only 7 per cent. this century?

Mr. Howard: I will not take any criticism about water prices from a party that in 1975–76 presided over average water price increases of 42·8 per cent. That is the truth of the matter, and Labour Members will do well to reflect on their own record before questioning water prices.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also spread the calumny that Opposition Members are so fond of spreading in his allegation that the Government have been taken to the European Court on water matters more often than any other member of the European Community. I do not know why Labour Members are so fond of spreading that falsehood. It is entirely untrue. The fact is that the United Kingdom has not been taken to the European Court on a single occasion in respect of water matters. If Labour Members took more care over this country's reputation, they would desist from spreading that self-evident falsehood.
Many matters in the Bill are worthy of the Committee's time. They go far wider than questions of privatisation. Provisions in parts II and III of the Bill will establish a new statutory framework for controlling drinking water quality, river quality and other standards affecting the control of pollution. We are also amending and improving the law in respect of a wide range of matters relating to water supply, sewerage services, water pollution, management of water resources, flood defence, and fisheries. I hope that all those matters will receive the proper and serious consideration that they deserve in the Committee's remaining sittings. The motion's purposes is to ensure an even pattern of debate for the remaining sittings and that important issues gain the attention they merit.
The Bill will result in a more efficient water industry and a much-improved water environment. It will give the customer a more responsive service, and it will free the industry from political intervention of the kind that, in the past, delivered a triple achievement of massive price rises, more employees, and declining investment in sewers and infrastructure. I look forward to proceeding with the Bill in an orderly manner so that, with proper debate and

consideration, the industry can take its place in the private sector by the end of the year. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is still one minute left.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has spoken.

Mr. Bob Cryer: She may speak with the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: She may, with the permission of the House—but not now. Time is up.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills.)

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 199.

Division No. 75]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Cormack, Patrick


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evennett, David


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Gower, Sir Raymond


Butcher, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cash, William
Grist, Ian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')






Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Harris, David
Mudd, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hayes, Jerry
Needham, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Heddle, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steve


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Holt, Richard
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howard, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)



Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stevens, Lewis


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mans, Keith
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Summerson, Hugo


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, David
Thorne, Neil


Miller, Sir Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miscampbell, Norman
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry





Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
George, Bruce


Allen, Graham
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Thomas


Armstrong, Hilary
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grocott, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Battle, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Margaret
Henderson, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bermingham, Gerald
Holland, Stuart


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Blair, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Blunkett, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Boateng, Paul
Hoyle, Doug


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Illsley, Eric


Buckley, George J.
Janner, Greville


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Callaghan, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lambie, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cartwright, John
Leighton, Ron


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Corbett, Robin
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Cousins, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Crowther, Stan
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Cunningham, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McTaggart, Bob


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Galloway, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David






Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pike, Peter L.
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Wall, Pat


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wallace, James


Reid, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Richardson, Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N,


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. Frank Cook.


Snape Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th March 1989.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 7th March may continue until Eight p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 8th March.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question of any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a


conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
'the Bill' means the Water Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Private Business

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Clerk will now proceed to read the titles of the private Bills set down for consideration at this hour.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm that, although we are about to debate the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill, it will be in order for hon. Members to refer to points relating to the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill? I am sure that you agree that the two Bills cover much the same principle of penalty fares, although they cover entirely different geographical areas. It would be for the convenience of the House if at least some general debate could take place, although obviously there will be two separate votes and two separate sessions of debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The two Bills will be taken separately, but clearly the one impinges on the other. I am fairly tolerant and will allow quite a wide debate, although hon. Members must of course not make it too wide.

British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill had its Second Reading in the other place nearly a year ago, on 21 March 1988. Its progress through Parliament has been delayed not because of any special difficulties with the Bill, but through circumstances that could not have been foreseen by its promoters.
As the House will recall, the Transport Act 1962 places a duty on the board to provide rail services having
due regard … to efficiency, economy and safety".
Sad to say, over many years that aspect has been seriously undermined by those who travel on the system without paying fares. The figure currently estimated for Network SouthEast—the area within which my constituency falls—is now losing some £36 million a year, with an overall figure that could be far in excess of £50 million. That is a substantial sum, representing an enormous number of journeys on which travel is enjoyed without payment being made. It could be as many as 20 million journeys.
Research has shown that much of the evasion takes place partly as a result of failure to find proper places to buy tickets and partly as a result of opportunism by young people on short journeys. The present position cannot be allowed to continue, if it can be changed satisfactorily. It is both archaic and inefficient. It is based on the visible check of tickets at the barrier which is at best perfunctory and at worst does not take place at all. Staffed barriers are inevitably expensive. They cause queuing and problems for those with luggage, pushchairs and other encumbrances. It is worth pointing out that this is the only country in either eastern or western Europe that still uses staffed barriers to check tickets. The penalty fare, of the type that I shall explain in a moment, is becoming increasingly commonplace.
The board's plan, as outlined in the Bill, is aimed at recovering about £9 million a year as an opening, realistic objective. It is hoped that that figure will be substantially increased, but the board has that in mind as a starting figure. The requirements of the scheme, as set down by the board, are, first, that it presents an effective incentive to people to purchase tickets, secondly, that it is relatively easy to operate and, thirdly, that it will cease to be, as it is at present, a substantial burden on the courts. It is worth remembering that between 3,000 and 4,000 cases a year still come before the courts. Although this is to be not a criminal but a civil penalty, it must also be remembered that the board retains the right, in the case of serious fraud, to prosecute under the terms of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and its byelaw under section 67 of the 1962 Act.
The penalty will be a simple, flat rate figure. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was correct when he said that a common feature of this Bill and that which London Regional Transport has in mind is a flat rate sum of £10. That is not in addition to the normal fare; it is instead of the fare. However, when the cost of the journey is higher than £10, the standard full, single fare would be recovered.

Dr. John Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in that instance no additional penalty will be imposed on any passenger?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman with his experience knows, is that under the 1889 Act—the principal Act that governs this problem—fraud has to be proved. That is a lengthy and, needless to say, expensive process. This is not a criminal penalty. It is a civil penalty. As I hope to explain in a moment, anybody who is confronted with it will have a number of options before him. Under the 1889 Act there would be a straightforward criminal prosecution under which the board would quite properly have to prove fraudulent intent.
The new scheme would transfer ticket examination from the station to the train. On long journeys that is a common procedure. That is why I said at the beginning that the problem tends to be at its worst on shorter journeys. With ticket inspection on trains, an additional benefit is that more staff would be travelling on the trains to carry out that duty, thereby enhancing passenger security on trains. I hope that that will reassure women and elderly people and make them feel safer. In some areas tickets are already issued on trains. The West Yorkshire passenger transport executive area is one of them. In such an area it is unlikely that any major changes will be necessary.
The system is designed primarily as part of a package of measures. I pointed out earlier that opportunistic people arrive at the station, find that the ticket office is closed and rush for the train. Despite the fact that they may say to somebody that they will pay at the other end, they get off the train and, finding the ticket barrier unmanned, walk off. That can be understood, but there is another type of person who deliberately tries to avoid paying.
This package of measures, of which the Bill is but a part, will include more and better ticket issuing machines. The board's objective is that people who require tickets should not have to wait more than three minutes in the off-peak period and five minutes in the peak period to

purchase them. That would provide an incentive for people to purchase tickets. They would not then encounter the problem that I have just described.
In addition to the ticket machines, there would also be the deferred fare authority machine. It would accept any coin between 5p and £1. If purchased, that ticket would mean that no penalty fare would have to be paid. It would provide people with the opportunity to pay the rest of the fare to a properly authorised railway official. The scheme would receive full publicity. If the new scheme were properly publicised by means of notices posted throughout the railway network, it would be thoroughly advantageous.
Penalty fares will be collected by fully trained and competent "authorised persons", as they are referred to in the Bill. I make it clear on behalf of the board that this will not be just another responsibility that is to be dumped on to ticket collectors. Training does not mean training only in the general law relating to passenger travel. A special course will enable authorised persons to deal with interpersonal relationships, violence and other problems. It is hoped that the teams who will undertake these checks will consist of no fewer than two people. Perhaps small groups of people will carry out the checks.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us how many people will be around?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information that he requires. More staff of a different type will be required. We are moving away from the barrier check to the on-train check. I am not aware that those who are currently carrying out this work will be put at a disadvantage. However, new and better trained teams of people will be required.
What is more important, the trained, authorised personnel will be given discretion. If a person says, "I have lost my ticket"—not a completely unknown predicament, in which some of us may have found ourselves—it will be possible for the official to say, "That is all right, you can go." There will also be a 21-day discretionary period. If a notice is issued to a passenger, he will be able to put his case in writing. The matter will then be examined by the appropriate authorities at head office. There will be no attempt to bulldoze or bully passengers. If a reasonable excuse is given, discretion can be exercised by those in authority.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no provision for the British Railways board to insist that fares are collected—that is, to reduce the discretion that fare collectors exercise? As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail introduced a number of disciplinary rules recently, and I dare say that there is a fear that the board will tend to set targets for collecting money, which will, of necessity, reduce discretion.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Happily, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that such targets are not in board members' minds. The board is anxious to create an incentive for ticket purchasing. Not everyone fails to buy a ticket for fraudulent reasons. However, at the same time, there should be a back-up penalty for people who are deliberately trying to evade the system. I hope that those


words will reassure the hon. Gentleman who, I know, is an expert on railways. I assure him that the board is not attempting to bully the travelling public.
The penalty, as I have said, will be a flat rate of £10. As I also pointed out, there will be an excess penalty for longer journeys. I wish to make it clear that no penalty fare will be issued to a passenger who has a ticket or some other authority to travel, or who found the ticket office was closed and no machines were available at the start of his journey—it is true that booking offices are often unavailable—or who has been told by a member of British Rail's staff to join the train.
Some form of penalty fare is necessary. To activate the penalty fare system it will be necessary for the Secretary of State for Transport to issue an order to that effect. The only way in which the system can be activated is by British Rail. None of the elements of the scheme can be introduced without the Secretary of State and British Rail being satisfied that the ticket machines, the deferred-payment machines and the rest are already in place. I hope that the system will be introduced not in a half-hearted, incompetent way but on the basis of providing every opportunity for those who wish to buy a ticket.
Providing that the Bill proceeds through the House, British Rail would like to start the scheme fairly swiftly. It is thinking of starting it on the Southend-Tilbury-London line and has also considered the possibility of the London to Reading line. A substantial number of the machines to which I referred are already in place. Training of the appropriate personnel is going ahead. In order to ensure that British Rail does not introduce a blanket scheme that breaks down through incompetence or inefficiency, the scheme will be introduced in places where the proper machinery is already in place.
I hope that the Bill, having received an unopposed Second Reading in the other place and having satisfactorily undergone the various relevant procedures before it came before us, will now command the support of the House.
No one who has paid to travel on the railway system, be it London Underground or the wider British Rail network—the two are interconnected—can ever feel entirely happy that a number of other people are travelling for nothing. If we want to hold down the cost of rail travel, it is essential to try to recover, as far as possible, all the moneys owing to the system.
I hope that the House will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go into Committee.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that there is no disagreement about wishing to stop people cheating when they travel. The disagreement will be about whether this measure, and that relating to the London Underground, will achieve that end.
The motion in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), that the Bill should be read a Second time six months hence, is particularly appropriate. Anyone who examines the problems currently facing the railways, and studies this measure, will think it far better if British Rail and London Underground were to come forward with their proposals in six months' time rather than now.
I understand that consultations with the unions have been fairly perfunctory so far, and it would seem better for British Rail to give us assurances that the unions—whose members, both men and women, will have to operate the scheme—have been fully consulted before the scheme is introduced.
London Underground's automatic ticket barriers cause a fair amount of chaos and we should see what happens with those before the measure is enacted. In the north-west, in Greater Manchester, my constituents are certainly not in favour of any form of penalty fares: they would be more in favour of penalty refunds because of the appalling service provided by British Rail for people in south-east Manchester. There is concern about the safety of passengers on the Underground and British Rail, and there are many questions about whether these measures will improve safety.
A fundamental principle of civil rights is involved. Does the Bill transfer the onus of proof from the railway authorities, who must prove that someone set out to defraud them, to the individual, who must prove that he did not set out to defraud the railway authorities? That is an unfortunate erosion of civil rights. There is also a lack of logic in a measure which seeks to make what was a criminal offence into merely a civil one. That may encourage the gambler in many people, who may feel that it is worth trying to avoid paying the full fare, because though they risk having to pay £10 if they are caught, they will not have committed a criminal offence.
The House ought to know more about deferred-payment ticket machines. They seem a good idea but I have yet to see one in operation.
Like so many other measures, the Bill is not very powerful on its own. The key lies with the Secretary of State's powers to implement it. I hope that tonight the Secretary of State or his representative will be able to give us some idea of how the Department envisages the implementation of the scheme, and of what checks it will make before it is convinced that an area is ready for the introduction of the scheme. We should also notice that, by order, the penalty can be increased from its present £10 and £5 to whatever the Minister or anyone else thinks appropriate.
British Rail has opted for a "no ticket barrier" philosophy. As I understand the documents that I have received, it wants to get rid of the barriers and ticket checking as passengers get on and off trains. On the other hand, London Underground is in favour of ticket barriers—one might say ticket barricades—so that people are checked on and off the platform. There is a fundamental difference between the two schemes.
It seems to me that in some parts of the country it will be extremely difficult for British Rail to check passengers on trains. In the north-west of England there are certain commuter lines into Manchester on which many people travel relatively short distances. It will be extremely difficult for British Rail to conduct on-train inspections of tickets because it still has so much archaic rolling stock on which it is absolutely impossible for anyone to move from carriage to carriage to check tickets. Certainly we desperately need to replace some of that old rolling stock from the north-west, and if this measure were to speed that up, I might be sympathetic.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are diesel multiple units that do not have sufficient personnel


to provide ticket conductors? I am thinking, for instance, of two two-carriage units that are not connected by a corridor. Because there are not sufficient personnel to operate in both two-car units trains often run with two cars empty. We have not received any assurance that British Rail's policy will be reversed so that we can ensure that all the DMUs are properly staffed.

Mr. Bennett: That is an important point. Certainly I would argue very strongly in support of on-train ticket checking, provided that the trains are suitable and that there are sufficient staff to carry it out. However, it is interesting—and this is a total contradiction of philosophy—that London Transport wants to go for barriers.
I am particularly concerned about the question of consultation with the unions. It seems to me that it is particularly important that both British Rail and London Transport are able to give assurances to the unions that these proposals will not involve any redundancies. If, as has been claimed, the main aim is to improve the service by having, in the case of the London Underground, more people to issue tickets and, in the case of British Rail, more people to check them, it ought to be possible to give the unions an assurance about redundancies.
I believe also that there should he assurances for the staff about safety. If it becomes known that travelling conductors or guards, or the staff doing the checks on the London Underground, are likely to be carrying substantial sums of money there will be a further risk to those people who already place themselves at some risk in that they deal at night with people who may have had something to drink or who may not be particularly amenable. The promoters of the Bills should have talked to the staff and given them assurances about safety.
They must also give the general public assurances about safety. First, they have to deal with the question of bogus collectors. Many people in the House were quite sympathetic to the idea of giving the police powers to collect penalty fines for motoring offences, particularly speeding, and to the idea that this could be done very quickly. But we are aware of the nasty experience arising from one or two bogus policemen operating on motorways, and, indeed, we have heard one or two instances of people assuming wrongly that officers were bogus.
We have to look into the question of the authority that the individuals collecting the penalties will have, so that it can be made absolutely clear to passengers that they are genuine collectors. This is particularly important in the case of British Rail because if the scheme is introduced in a piecemeal way many people will not be certain whether it operates in their area. I hope there can be some clarification and that there will be discussions with the unions about the safety of those individuals.
My argument for deferring the scheme for six months relates very much to the question of the Underground and the automatic ticket barriers. I notice that there have already been criticisms of the automatic ticket barriers. The fire brigade has suggested that it is not really safe if large numbers of people have to get off the platform. It may be a bit of brilliant timing by the Underground that it put the fares up in January, just as it was introducing many more machines. It seems that at the same time people are having considerable difficulty in having the right money for the machines. Every machine that I come across demands the exact money rather than offering

change. In addition, many people are finding it difficult to put the tickets into the automatic barriers. Certainly my experience is that most people go for the open gate rather than put their ticket though the machine. Surely it would have been far better for the London Underground to wait until its barriers were working and seen their effect.
Apart from anything else, I believe that if the machines work effectively they will cut fraud significantly, and there may therefore be no need at all for this measure. If the machines do not cut fraud significantly, what is the point of introducing them? I shall not say any more now about the automatic barriers; it may be more appropriate to come back to the question later.
My constituents in Greater Manchester are very disgruntled and upset about British Rail spending so much time trying, supposedly, to improve inter-city trains through Manchester. They have had a winter of total and incomprehensible muddle so far as the local commuter trains are concerned. A constituent of mine regularly writes to me to tell me which trains are late on his journey to work. I get a letter at least every day. It would be simpler for him, and for me, if he were to write and tell me when the trains are on time. I realise that British Rail has been doing a great deal of work at Piccadilly south, but certainly the service is appalling.
As I said earlier, my constituents would like penalty refunds. I do not think that they would mind if they got a pound for every 10 minutes the trains were late. British Rail would have been bankrupt a long time ago if it had had to pay out that sort of money.
It is very sad that British Rail has put so much effort into the inter-city services so that it can run trains from Blackpool to Harwich—only one little Sprinter carriage, but it goes—and from Newcastle to Liverpool via Piccadilly—yet it has not been able to maintain a commuter service through that area.

Mr. Peter Snape: My hon. Friend is labouring under the same misapprehension that I laboured under until recently. Those trains from Harwich to Blackpool, and indeed the ones between the cities of Newcastle and Liverpool, are not part of the inter-city network. If my hon. Friend can tell me why, he is a wiser man than I.

Mr. Bennett: I do not know what network they are part of.

Mr. Snape: The provincial services.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend. Certainly they are appropriate to some very sleepy provinces; they do not provide a very speedy service.
What is particularly worrying is that British Rail seems to have felt that, in order to squeeze those trains through Piccadilly south, it was possible to squeeze out the commuter service into Manchester. I understand that the Manchester transport executive has been considering taking British Rail to court over its failure to provide the service for which it gets a subsidy. Certainly, the first thing that the people coming into that area want is trains that are reliable and efficient, and they would be much happier to pay for that service by buying tickets than to see British Rail spending its time introducing a measure like this, which will do nothing to improve public morale. I should think that anyone trying to collect tickets on those trains would spend a great deal of time getting a great deal of


earache about the unreliability of the service and would find it extremely difficult to move from one part of the train to another, even if there were corridors—and many carriages still do not have corridors.
Let me turn now to the question of safety. British Rail in particular says that if there are far more people on the trains checking tickets there will be improved safety. To a certain extent London Underground makes the same case. I am sure that we are all very concerned about the safety of passengers, but I suggest that there is not an overwhelming case for saying that people are worried about their safety on the trains as opposed to their safety on the stations. It seems that British Rail is aiming to reduce substantially the number of people on the stations. I must say that at more than one station where I wait late at night I would much prefer to know that there was someone in the booking office who, if I were attacked, would have a chance of doing something about it. He might pick up the telephone, though I would not expect him to come to my assistance in any other way. But if I knew that the ticket office was not manned, that there was merely a machine, my unease would be increased. At one or two stations in the Greater Manchester area, passengers have to go down a couple of steps and around one or two awkward corners, where somebody could lurk, before they get to the platform. The idea that such stations will not be manned increases my anxiety, especially if the automatic ticket machines are liable to attempts by people up to mischief to take money out of them. That does not increase safety.
With London Underground, if staff are on the platform and are clearly visible at barriers, their presence is an effective deterrent. I would like more staff to travel on trains to reduce violence. I do not accept the promoters' claim that the Bills will increase passenger safety. For British Rail, it would be much preferable to have more effectively manned stations and travelling ticket collectors. With London Underground, the problem with fare default increased substantially when staff levels were reduced. The problems of violence on the tube and on stations has also increased as a result of reduced staffing.
The promoters claim that making what was previously a criminal charge a civil charge is a significant step in terms of civil rights, but it is not really all that significant for most people because most people do not want to break the law, civil or criminal—they want to be law abiding. The change, which is fairly minor in their eyes, does not justify changing the onus of proof. I understand that at the moment, London Underground and British Rail have to prove that an individual got on a train without trying to buy a ticket and intended to travel without paying. If that were difficult to prove, one would expect there to be few court cases, but the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that there are a substantial number of prosecutions each year.
It is extremely difficult, however, for a traveller to prove that he intended to pay. Deferred payment machines might be installed at all stations. If that is so, life will be easier for somebody who arrives at a station without an open window at which to pay to get a ticket out of the machine. I suspect that people will occasionally have only more than

a £1 coin, especially if they have travelled some distance. They can reasonably expect there to be somebody at a window to take their fare.
The presence and working conditions of a deferred payments machine must be guaranteed if the scheme is to have any justification. My experience is of going to Westminster tube station after about 11 pm and finding nobody to take the money for a ticket. A 50p machine sometimes worked before Christmas, but often there was no machine and somebody in a little wooden office counting money. I could not be certain whether he was supposed to be counting money because he had finished his shift or whether he was trying to finish early and ought to have had the window open. At the other end, there was sometimes somebody to collect the money, but sometimes there was not.
If I were stopped on the train, I doubt whether I could satisfy the inspector that there was nobody at Westminster station. Indeed, I suspect that if that somebody was supposed to be at the window at Westminster station and supposed to be collecting money, he would insist firmly that he was doing just that. It would simply be my word against his. In my position, and in view of the fuss that I would make, it might not be all that difficult for me to get away with it, but a 13 or 14-year-old, or somebody who was not prepared to make a fuss, would probably find that London Underground tends to believe the person in the office rather than the individual. That gives rise to considerable difficulty.
Many people would be pressurised into paying because they would be unable to prove that, when they went to the ticket office, nobody was in it. People can also claim that they have been authorised by somebody in British Rail or London Underground uniform that they are entitled to travel without making a payment at the start of the journey. When challenged, or at an inquiry, it is extremely difficult to say who authorised the travel. There must be a much more efficient way of issuing tickets or some other authorisation for travel before the Bill is introduced.
Anyone who knows London Underground will say that the present system has broken down. If it needs the new machines and they work, very few people will defraud it. That being so, it would be no hardship to London Underground—indeed, it would be an advantage—to charge people who defraud the system with a criminal offence and make a fuss about the fact that they have been apprehended and punished. The only argument in favour of penalty fares arises when a large number of people do not pay and the burden of taking them through the courts becomes too great.
If the new barriers are worth all the fuss, they must cut the amount of fare dodging. If British Rail has efficient ticket issuing machines on the Southend line, there should be a major reduction in the number of fare dodgers. If there is, there is no hardship in treating fare dodging as a criminal offence, on which basis the fine could be much more than £10—and much more of a deterrent.
The £10 penalty fare might be considered a gambler's charter. People who have to pay £1·50 or £3·00 may think that, if they get away with it, it will have cost them nothing and that, if they are caught, the most that they will have to pay is £10. On some British Rail routes into London, people have to pay £7 or £8 for a ticket. Gambling for £10 in those circumstances becomes quite attractive. There does not seem to be much logic in that.
I would much rather have the new and supposedly efficient ticket checking and collecting systems and no resort to penalty fares. I should like a more detailed description of the deferred payment ticket machines. I would like to know how soon London Underground will add them to its exising machines. Will it be possible to say, "I got a deferred ticket because I read, 'Exact money' on the machine and I cannot see a space for that on the machine below the 60p"?
I hope that the Minister can tell us what guarantees he wants about the sections of line to which the new arrangements will apply. With British Rail, the scheme will be phased in on the Southend line first. What guarantees will the Minister want about orders? What publicity for the new arrangements will be provided? Can the Minister assure us that he will not increase the £10 and £5 penalty fares?
What will happen with the rolling stock? I hope that we shall have a guarantee that none of the new arrangements will apply when people cannot move from one carriage to the next to check fares.
I have expressed most of my fears. There should certainly be some amendments on Report. I shall also be looking with considerable interest at the operation of the present London Underground system. I shall be looking for dramatic improvements in reliability and punctuality in Manchester when the new timetable is brought out. In the light of all that, I reserve my final attitude to penalty fares, although I am concerned about the principle of changing the onus of proof so that instead of someone having to prove that an individual has committed a crime the individual will have to prove that he has not committed an offence.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the Government's attitude to the Bill. First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on making so clear the purposes of the Bill. I hope that my remarks will help the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) with some of the points that he raised.
In May 1986 the Government set up a working group to look into arrangements for charging penalty fares on public transport. We accepted its recommendations that changes in the law were needed to tackle the problem of fare evasion and we gave our consent to BR and LRT to deposit the Penalty Fares Bills which we are discussing tonight.
The Government strongly support the Bill. British Rail loses large amounts of revenue every year through fraudulent travel. The new Bill is designed to deter people from embarking on a journey without a valid ticket or "deferred fare authority" which allows them to travel to their destination and then pay an excess fare.

Dr. Marek: Before the Minister continues reading his speech, may I ask him why he sought to intervene and make his speech after only one Opposition Member has been allowed to speak? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also wishes to make a speech. I hope that the Minister will not simply plough through his prepared speech and then take no further part in the debate or answer any questions from Opposition Members?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a private Bill and not a Government Bill. I am not here to wind up the discussion or reply to points. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has raised some points about an order that the Government might make, but those points are best addressed when the Government may or may not make that order. For the moment we are dealing with private legislation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Although I did not develop that argument in my speech, there is a great deal of worry about the order-making procedure. The orders are subject to annulment, which does not encourage debate in the House, and the best we can get is a debate for one and a half hours. That is not satisfactory. Surely it is far better for the issues to be argued in the House before we give the Minister the powers to make the orders rather than when he has those powers.

Mr. Portillo: I am trying to address the hon. Gentleman's worries by making a speech now, if I am allowed to continue. It may be that annulment does not encourage debate, but it certainly allows debate. In any case we are now debating the Second Reading of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman feels that that part of the Bill is objectionable to him doubtless he will seek to amend it during the further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall take the Minister's hint.

Mr. Portillo: The recovery of lost revenue through the operation of the Bill will benefit not only British Rail but both the honest passenger and the taxpayer. It should be a significant help to BR in achieving the objectives we have set—to reduce the amount of support it receives from the public purse, while improving quality of service.
Passengers will also benefit from unrestricted access to and from trains through the use of "open stations", since on-train ticket checks will allow more ticket barriers to be removed. In addition, more automatic ticket-vending machines and the introduction of deferred fare authority machines will reduce queues at ticket offices.
Many parts of the country outside London and the south-east already have open-station systems and on the whole they have been successful. On-train ticket checks are common in Europe and Britain is the only country which still relies heavily on barrier controls.
Under existing law, if a passenger is found travelling without a valid ticket, BR can charge him the full single fare to his destination. However, research has shown that most fare evasion takes place over short distances and therefore that is not an effective deterrent. The payment of a flat-rate penalty of £10—which is the same as that proposed by LRT—or the full single fare, if it is greater, will encourage people to buy a ticket before travelling. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest made clear, the penalty fare will be a civil penalty, not a criminal one, and that will mean that most offences for non-payment of fares will no longer be heard at magistrates' courts. But BR would still have the right to prosecute in serious cases of fraud.
Of course, the powers which I have just described cannot be applied to any service or group of services until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an activating order. Before any such order is made the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the system


and that they include safeguards to ensure that honest passengers are not penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. He will therefore need to be satisfied that ticket offices are properly staffed; that the necessary ticket and deferred authority machines are in place; that there are satisfactory arrangements for monitoring and repairing machines; that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the new system; that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the system and are deployed appropriately and that they have adequate identification. We must also be assured that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place.
We believe that the introduction of penalty fares legislation will bring many benefits to passengers as well as helping to recover some of the revenue which BR is losing through fare evasion. We will need to be assured that preparations have been made to ensure that the system is operated properly and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect the honest fare-paying passengers.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for the customary courteous and lucid way in which he introduced the Bill. However, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) shows that we should not allow the elaborate cloak so cleverly spun by the hon. Member for New Forest to disguise the somewhat shabby figure underneath. A number of legitimate points should be raised before the House allows the Bill to proceed.
The hon. Member for New Forest referred to the need, indeed the desire, of British Rail for more and better ticket-issuing machines. So say all of us. Those of us who have travelled on, have had any dealings with or have worked on British Rail, as I have, will be aware that not so many years ago—at least it does not feel too many years ago—one went to a ticket office window, handed over the cash and very quickly was presented with a piece of cardboard on which was written the originating station and in larger letters the destination. The price on it was inevitably out of date, but the whole transaction was fairly speedy and simple.
That is not the case now. By the nature of their job, Ministers are cosseted from the realities of daily life that are faced by millions of ordinary people, but a quick visit to any mainline railway station will demonstrate that these days the system of purchasing and selling a railway ticket is much more complicated. First, the little pieces of cardboard to which I referred so fondly have all disappeared. I understand that that was known as the Edmonson system after its inventor, just to tip off the Minister in passing. Particularly at mainline terminals, the ticket issuing machines look like extras from "Doctor Who". They are enormously complex. The mere issuing of a ticket leads to an interrogation from the clerk which is understandable, given the multiplicity of tickets that BR now sells—blue savers, white savers, singles, returns, first class, standard class—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Silver service.

Mr. Snape: —and silver service, as my hon. Friend reminds me. It is immensely more complicated than it used to be.
The House will not be surprised, although the Minister might be, to find that queues at mainline stations are considerably longer than they used to be. The temptation for passengers in a hurry is to leave the queue and board the train, particularly at an open station with no barrier check. They will then pay the conductor-guard, the senior ticket examiner—I understand that that will be the new grade—or the station staff at their destination, depending on who approaches the passengers first. At the risk of the hon. Member for New Forest branding me as a potential criminal, I must confess I have acted in that way when I have seen a long ticket queue. Therefore, we need more assurances that the new and better ticket-issuing machines are on the way, because there appears to be no sign of them so far.
The hon. Member for New Forest said that the British Railways board intends to try to ensure that the maximum wait at a ticket window will be between three and five minutes. That time, so optimistically referred to, is considerably exceeded for most parts of the day at, for example, Birmingham New Street which is my closest InterCity station. Despite there being up to five ticket windows open, there is often a considerable queue at each. Many passengers, including hon. Members, no longer use the outmoded system of purchasing with cash. They use credit cards or, in our fortunate case, railway warrants. Transactions involving credit cards or railway warrants take a little longer than the simple cash transactions of the past. Also, many of us seek reassurance from the person from whom we purchase the ticket that the train we want is running, that it is on time and often from which platform it departs. That causes increased congestion and delay for those in the queue. Someone whose patience expires or whose time of departure gets ever closer while complex transactions take place would be likely to head for the train and hope for the best.
Under the proposed system, such a passenger would, according to the hon. Member for New Forest, have an opportunity to purchase a permit-to-travel ticket for what he describes as a "nominal fee". British Rail's idea of a nominal fee often does not coincide with the thinking of the rest of us. The hon. Member for New Forest—or more likely the person who drafted the Bill and certainly the organisation for which it was drafted—takes an optimistic view of the efficacy of the machines that accept money. The hon. Gentleman did not give the figure that British Rail has in mind, but it will probably be up to £1. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that some machines accept coins and then reject coins of the same denomination within seconds. We need an assurance that the machines that British Rail has in mind will be more foolproof than any we have yet seen on British Rail or London Underground such as those at, for example, Westminster tube station.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The deferred payments machines are supposed to accept any coin up to £1. It will be interesting to see whether they can cope with any coin. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that such machines cannot provide essential information such as whether the train is still at the station and other information that one can obtain from an individual.

Mr. Snape: That amply illustrates the lack of concern for the travelling public so often demonstrated by those in charge of our, fortunately, still publicly owned railway and underground system. Such people are almost exclusively male. For some reason, the concept of manoevring a pram, trolley, shopping bag or a couple of recalcitrant toddlers around a railway station never impinges on their thinking because they never do it themselves. Yet, to add an additional complication to a journey is not, to put it at its mildest, likely to benefit customer relations. We will be told that it is more efficient. More efficient for whom? Is it more efficient for the accountants who run our public transport system or for those who travel on it?
The hon. Member for New Forest said that no penalty fare would be payable if no machine were available. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out the difficulty involved in proving that no machine was available or that a machine was not in proper working order. How does one prove that one has been told, in the words of the hon. Member for New Forest, by a member of British Rail staff to join the train without a ticket? British Rail has a multiplicity of staff. Some are involved directly in ticket sales, but the majority are not. Does a member of British Rail staff include a driver leaning out of a cab of a diesel multiple unit or one of the new fangled sprinters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred? Such trains meander from Blackpool to Harwich and are staffed, at least on part of the journey, by only one person. If that one person—the driver—leans out of his cab at a station and says to a passenger staring in bewilderment at one of the ticket machines, "Will you be there all day because the train will not?", does that constitute permission to travel without a ticket or do we have to wait for my learned friends to make a bob or two in some court while deciding whether it is permission to travel without a ticket?
Most laughably of all, the Minister referred to the fact that the Secretary of State would have to give his consent before any route could switch to the penalty fares system. How many times have those who take an interest in such matters heard that said in recent years? When responsibility for public transport was taken away from the Greater London council, I remember the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), assuring us that he would be responsible for the safe running of the system and that any complaints about tickets or trains could be directed to him in the House. He and his successor were quiet after the King's Cross disaster. There was not a collection of Ministers at the Dispatch Box, beating their breasts and crying "Mea culpa" after that incident.
Therefore, I cannot believe that, given the complicated life that the Secretary of State for Transport leads and given his wide responsibilities and some of the events that have impinged on them in recent months, he can call in a group of British Rail managers, perhaps from the London-Tilbury-Southend route, and say, "Now chaps, what have you done to enable me to consent to your proceeding with the penalty fares system on your route?" We all know what will happen. He will receive a letter from British Rail saying that everything is in place for the great scheme to be implemented and he will give his consent without knowing personally what British Rail has done.
Of course, there is a lack of logic about the penalty fare system, because both the Minister and the hon. Member

for New Forest referred to the loss to British Rail and London Underground from fare evasion. I am sure that the amount is considerable and all of us, whatever our connections have been with British Rail or London Underground Limited, would deplore that. It is said that Network SouthEast is losing about £36 million from fare evasion. That is a remarkably precise figure for an imprecise science. I do not believe that anyone can know how many fares are evaded.
The Minister and the hon. Gentleman made the point that much of the evasion took place on short journeys, which was the thinking behind the £10 penalty fare. The way the system works is that, if one evades a £1 fare—not that there have been many of those since this Government came to power—one is fined 10 times the amount of the fare that one has evaded. If, for example, one tries to evade the fare between Euston and Manchester—to use the route referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—presumably one is not fined at all, because that £10 has long since been swallowed up in the exorbitant price of the ticket.
The Bill says, in effect that, if one is going to fiddle, one should do it in a big way. One should fiddle not on short distance journeys, because there is a severe financial penalty, but on the long journeys—the very journeys from which British Rail are anxious to safeguard its revenue—because under the Bill there will be no penalty.
Of course, the hon. Member for New Forest might say that there are existing statutes that would take care of such matters. That might be right, but I believe that there is an enormously illogical flaw in a scheme that can fine someone for evading a small fare, but does no such thing when there has been large-scale fare evasion.
The Minister said that there would be good publicity to explain the proposed changes to the travelling public. However, many members of the public—especially women—might catch trains only occasionally. How and where would this publicity, which will tell people that the scheme is in operation, be exhibited? We all know that the scheme will be used to reduce staff on railway stations even further. I do not want to see British Rail staff on wayside railway stations on quiet branch lines—those that are still left—sitting around doing nothing. That would be a fairly frustrating business and would not lead to any great job satisfaction. However, what we envisage here is a scheme planned by men for men. The man carrying only a briefcase will have no great difficulty. He will not have shopping or toddlers to worry about. For thousands, if not millions, of women who travel alone or with children, the introduction of this scheme and the consequent reduction of staff will mean even less security on their journeys than before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish pointed out the problems that have already been experienced by people using London Underground in the short time that automatic barriers have been installed at many stations. Like him, and no doubt other hon. Members, I can recount many occasions when making late night journeys from Westminster tube station has meant travelling for nothing, because the ticket office at Westminster has not been manned. Unaccountably, all the machines have been switched off, although sometimes there is a 50p machine. I used to live in north London and the fare before the latest round of fare increases was about £1·60. It was quite possible to get on a train through an unmanned barrier at Westminster. One would have


thought that that was the one station on the system where there should be proper staffing. The failings at Westminster station illustrate amply the sort of contempt that past London Underground management—I do not know about the present management had for this place and for the Secretary of State, who was supposedly in charge of its day-to-day operations, or so we were told at the time—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman does not use the service.

Mr. Snape: He might be in charge, but it does not mean he has to use the service.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Snape: I shall give way in a moment. Just let me finish the journey that I used to take last November.
When I left the train at my destination, either on the Victoria or the Piccadilly line, depending on which train came along first, regularly late at night there was no one manning my terminal station, and therefore, of course, my £1·60 journey cost me nothing. Yet we are told that under this marvellous new system it is the dishonest passenger who will be caught. The management of London Underground Limited will need to be more efficient before we bite on this particular cherry.

Mr. Banks: I have felt very much the same as my hon. Friend about the staffing at Westminster station. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed how good it is at St. James's Park. Staff seem to polish everything there including the passengers. That might have something to do with the location of the headquarters of London Regional Transport.
I came from East Ham station this morning and the ticket office was closed. I saw the train coming, there was a queue waiting at the ticket machine, so I sprinted down and jumped on the train. Obviously, being a very honest person I paid the full fare when I arrived at Westminster. I was told there was no one at East Ham station because the staff were training. There is an awful lot of temptation put in the way of the potential fare evader and I find it unacceptable that it can be said that there are not sufficient staff to man the ticket offices. That is an open invitation to ticket fraud.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his experience is mirrored by every one of us. I can quote no recent example to show that things are getting any better.
I have recently been travelling by London Underground from Notting Hill. Waiting for a Circle line train from Notting Hill enables one to watch operating practices. Unaccountably, Circle line trains appear to be few and far between. At Notting Hill there is a whole battery of those fancy new ticket machines in the booking hall. When they were installed, virtually all of them said in bright red letters "Change Given". They were very modern looking machines and one expected them to do everything, including drive the trains. They were complex to use but, once one got the hang of them, it could be said that the modernisation of LRT had actually arrived. However, now most of those machines, instead of saying "Change Given", say "Correct Change Only". To use one example,

this morning I counted about 14 people waiting at one open ticket window and others were looking plaintively at those machines and fiddling through purses and handbags trying to find the correct change.
There is a problem, too, with the new barriers at Westminster. One of them refuses to accept a 60p ticket from Notting Hill. I hope that I am paying the right fare. The barrier shows a green arrow, but the gates do not open. One could well envisage another King's Cross situation, and the carnage that would ensue from half a dozen people trying to get out through the barrier.
We are told that the introduction of barriers and the penalty fare scheme are designed to bring greater efficiency and benefit to the travelling public. With your kind acquiescence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have embraced what I wanted to say about the second Bill. There are important and substantial differences between the two systems. Travelling on the London Underground system at night is more difficult sometimes than travelling on the surface railway. All the points that I have made about the women travelling on British Rail once the Bill is implemented are even more relevant to London Underground because, by its nature, there are steps, subways, escalators—do you remember those, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and when it was possible to get on a moving one? In the new modern system it is only possible to walk up and down escalators; they do not carry passengers.
I can only suggest to my hon. Friends that we wait for the hon. Member for New Forest to sum up. I am sure that his contribution will be as lucid and courteous as his opening speech, but I hope it will be more satisfying and enlightening.

Dr. John Marek: There are similarities between the Bill and the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill. I hope to make another contribution when we discuss the latter. Those who give a cursory glance at the two Bills may assume that they are different because the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill, if enacted, would allow open stations. Staff would not control any gates and passengers could walk straight on or off trains. The Bill for London Underground proposes a closed system. There will be gates at stations and passengers will be held within the system unless they have a ticket to pass through the gates to enter or leave the system.
The Bills are similar because the aim of both systems is to cut down staff and to make people redundant. Eventually they will generate a second-class system for what the Government plainly believe are the second-class public who use the systems. It is certainly true that, by and large, Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers do not use the London Underground or British Rail.
The Minister spoke about what is happening on the continent, as though whatever happens there should also happen here. On the continent it is possible to get on a train without passing through a control, but equally on the continent there is not one pair of guards on a 12-carriage train, but two pairs. Those guards will pass through the train between one station and another. In this country there is no way in which a pair of guards or three guards could travel along a 12-carriage train during the rush hour between Newington and Sittingbourne on the north Kent route. If someone gets on at Newington and gets off at


Sittingbourne he may not have to pass through any controls. The system incorporated in the Bill will encourage evasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke about the unsuitability of the barriers used on the London Underground. Those barriers also exist in the underground systems of Germany and France, but most of those systems have been rebuilt with wide, palatial concourses. A fire such as that at King's Cross could probably never happen in Europe because of the immense amount of space incorporated in the new underground systems. In comparison, the plans for our underground system are pokey, small, claustrophobic and liable to suffer similar fires to that at King's Cross because of the introduction of tight gates and automatic barriers. It is clear that either the Government have not thought it out or—

Mr. Tony Banks: They could not care less.

Dr. Marek: That is right. They do not agree with the principle of manned stations and trains. Employing people is not something that they want to do.

Mr. Banks: It is worthy of comment that the Prime Minister has not travelled on a British Rail train since February 1987. I am damned sure that she has never travelled on the London Underground during the rush hour. If some Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, travelled on the Underground or on Network SouthEast during the rush hour, I am sure that something would be done about the appalling travelling conditions that Londoners must face.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that a lot of people are grateful that she does not travel on the trains or on the Underground, but perhaps that is somewhat facetious. Perhaps the Minister should report our comments back to his mistress and tell her that she should go down to Oxford Circus station at 5.15 on a Thursday afternoon. I regularly used to ask the Prime Minister if she travelled by train on official business, but for three or four years the answer was always no.

Mr. Banks: It has been suggested to me—I had not thought of it—that if the Prime Minister travelled on the Underground during the rush hour someone would probably push her under a train. No doubt there would be quite a queue to do it.

Dr. Marek: We must not be uncharitable. We would like her to travel on the Underground—incognito if possible—so that she can experience the difficulties that the public face.
I am not in favour of anyone evading payment of the proper fare. The National Union of Railwaymen is not in favour of that. I should declare that I am sponsored by that union. I do not believe that any reasonable person could condone fare evasion, but the problem is whether the Bill has got it right. The Bill, rather than closing off the avenues for evasion, will encourage them. Society will become worse because temptation will be put in people's way. Such temptation should, of course, be avoided but, life is not like that. It will be much better if we had a system where evasion was not presented as a temptation.
Assaults on passengers and staff on British Rail are increasing. In 1984 there were 309 assaults on passengers—such attacks cover murder, attempted murder,

manslaughter, malicious wounding, grievous bodily harm, robbery and assault with intent to rob. In 1985 there were 374 assaults on passengers; in 1986 there were 448 and in 1987 there were 508. The equivalent figures for assaults on staff, although not rising monotonically as with passenger assaults, have also risen in the same period. In 1984 there were 88 assaults on staff; in 1985 there were 79 assaults; in 1986 there were 69 and in 1987 there were 102. That represents a fairly large increase and it is something that concerns employees of British Rail.
If the Bill gets on to the statute book staff will be expected to collect penalty fares in difficult circumstances. Late at night the staff, if they expect to do their job properly, honestly and without failure, will have to try to collect penalty fares from people who will have had too much to drink and who could easily be in an argumentative mood. There is no question of people being able to say that they were not absolutely sure that they wanted that particular train or that they were unsure if they could travel by bus if there was no convenient train. According to the Bill once the person has got on a train he has committed himself to an illegal position. Unless that person provides a satisfactory explanation for being without a ticket he will have committed a civil offence, which will necessitate the payment of the penalty fare. I am sure that a number of people will be unreasonable and irrational when asked to pay such a fare. It will increase the number of incidents on the railway and that is regrettable. We all seek a system to stop evasion but we should try to find one that will not lead to incidents, arguments and perhaps violence.
The Bill does not make me feel very easy. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said, the penalty only applies if the fare is under £10. The fare from Dover to Victoria must be about £10·50 or £11 and that would encourage a traveller to chance his arm because if he were caught he would have to pay only £10·50 or £11.

Mr. Snape: I should also add, and perhaps I should have said it in my speech, that one would have to pay the full ordinary fare within 21 days. That is a better bet than standing in a long queue at a ticket office in Dover.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. If a person is detected and challenged he will have to pay only the single fare.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It will be necessary to take a person's name and address and to make certain that the details are correct. What questions will the guard or ticket collector be entitled to ask about whether he has the correct name and address?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. There will be a temptation to avoid paying a fare because it will be easy for a traveller to say that he is Mr. Jones of 4 Railway Cuttings, East Cheam and then go on his way. What is the ticket collector supposed to do in such a case? He can do nothing other than accept that the name and address are correct and that means that the person who has been caught will get away without having to pay his fare.
I shall develop the argument that I advanced earlier. A fare dodger travelling between two stations that are close together—from New Cross to St. John's, for example, for which a single fare is perhaps 60p—and who was caught and decided to make a clean breast of it would have to pay


£10. I see no harm in a system that catches people trying to avoid paying fares but in future many people will be on trains without a ticket simply because the permission-to-travel machine did not work, the booking office was closed or there were too many people in the queue at the booking office and people had to jump on a train that was about to leave. In such cases the argument raised with the penalty fare collector will always be about whether there was a reasonable excuse. Anyone who is challenged by British Rail about why he did not go to the booking office will say that he did. I would say that and so would the Minister. There is a wide area for argument.
People who have to pay a penalty fare of £10 for travelling without a 60p ticket will feel resentful, especially if they think that they are being treated unfairly vis-a-vis a traveller from Dover to Victoria or to London bridge who will have to pay only the single fare.
I have spoken about the reliability of permission-to-travel machines. The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that there will be new and better ticket machines. It would be better if the Bill were withdrawn for six months so that we could be satisfied that there were not just new and better ticket machines but new and guaranteed systems with fail-safe devices. When they are working the new London Underground ticket machines are good. That is a personal view. However, they will often accept only the exact money. I do not know why that should be, but I suspect that when the machines run out of change they automatically display a sign saying "Exact money only". Part of the problem is that London Underground is not prepared to service those machines so that they will always give change. It is no good the Minister saying that we will have an assurance on this or that. The public are far too cynical, and so am I, to believe such assurances.
I have long experience of London Underground and British Rail and I know that we need to see the system in action first. It must be proved that the new ticket machines on the Underground are reliable 99·99 per cent. of the time. I think that there are about three or four machines in Westminster tube station and in such stations it will be necessary for, say, two of those machines to work 99·99 per cent. of the time. If that could be guaranteed I might lend a more sympathetic ear to assurances by the Government.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has said that he has had no trouble with these machines. Could he tell us the correct way to push a child in a pram through one of the exit machines so that the passenger can insert the ticket and get the pram through without being chopped in half?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend misunderstands. I was talking about the machines that supply tickets and not about the barriers and how one should go through them. Perhaps we could talk about that later. I accept the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about coins being accepted while a few seconds later identical coins are rejected. In my short personal experience of these machines I have not encountered that problem. That reinforces the point that we need to be satisfied that the machines will work, and that calls for proper servicing by

London Underground. If a machine runs out of change somebody should be there within 10 or 15 minutes to replenish it.
British Rail machines will not be enclosed in underground stations but will probably be on open, windswept platforms where, late at night, anybody can have access to them. The whole point of the Bill is to ensure that there will be fewer staff and that people will be able to go in and out of stations and get on and off trains. Vandals will have access to the machines. As I say, I am cynical about the Bill. I do not think that British Rail will be able to provide a permission-to-travel machine that is vandal-proof and that will provide a valid ticket for a specific coin,. If the machines will accept any coin, what else will they take in the course of their working day?
There is a serious problem here. The London underground system is locked up at night and so is vandal-proof, but British Rail has the opposite system. It is planning to open stations but to withdraw staff from platforms and have inspections on the trains. That will be a temptation to vandals, and vandalism leads to a worse society.
The hon. Member for New Forest said that the inspection teams would have two or perhaps three conductors for 12-carriage sets, or even longer sets in suburban areas. The Bill basically affects Network SouthEast, in which many people get on and off at intermediate stations—for example, on a suburban train going from Charing Cross to Bromley and stopping every two or three minutes. At the peak rush hour, many people will get on at the terminus, but many will get off at the intermediate stations. It would be impossible for one team of conductors to go through the whole train between one station and another. I suspect that even two teams of conductors would not be able to do so.
This must invite evasion of fares. Passengers can easily find out where the conductors are and I suspect that it would be relatively easy to travel two or three stations without being inspected. Even those passengers who are not minded to evade fares will quite often find that their tickets are not controlled on such journeys. At the moment, such tickets are controlled because at the main stations there is a ticket barrier before a passenger gets on the train, and the guard looks at the ticket. When the passenger alights he has either to give in his ordinary ticket or show his season ticket to the guard at the barrier. If that changes, evasion will increase rather than decrease.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said that £36 million was lost through fare evasion on Network SouthEast. That is a large sum, and I reiterate the point that he made that, if this is the official figure, the chances are that the real figure is even bigger. Why cannot British Rail go the other way and, instead of having an unsatisfactory method of trying to stop evasion and a way that will not work, employ 2,000 more staff?
The National Economic Research Association in its report as part of the "Better Rail" campaign suggested that 2,000 extra staff, costing £20 million, would pay for themselves by cutting fare evasion. The hon. Member for New Forest did not address that point, and he must do so. It would have obvious benefits in that not only would there be employment for 2,000 people, but those people would be on the platforms and would be able to help mothers with children and make sure that vandalism on the platforms did not occur, that stations were cleaner and that evasion was decreased. That is the nub of the


argument. The Bill is going in the wrong direction and it is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. British Rail should have come to a different conclusion and started to employ more staff instead.
I hope that there will be a vote on Second Reading so that I can express my displeasure about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish says, if the Bill does not receive a Second Reading, I hope that British Rail will think about the suggestions that have been made this evening. I hope that the Government Lobby fodder will not come in when the Division Bells go.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: No.

Dr. Marek: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. If he is, we have a chance of defeating the Bill, because the weight of argument is against it. However, if by some chance the Bill is given a Second Reading, I can think of many amendments that I should like to table in Committee and on Report.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The best system for issuing tickets is that which uses human beings. The notion that many of them should be replaced by machines, with all the difficulties that have been described tonight, is a clear prelude to privatisation of British Rail—to increase profits, to inconvenience passengers and to give the putative privatised sector more powers, through orders issued by the Secretary of State, to impose the new system on passengers.
Nobody would quibble with the Minister's view that we should curtail fare dodging to benefit honest passengers. That was qualified by his claim that he wants to reduce public revenue support. Several people have quoted continental practice. For example, the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke about the continental practice of train inspection. However, the Minister did not invoke the continental practice of support for railway transport, in working hours or in the rate of wages. If we are to have continental practice, then we should have continental standards on safety and wage awards.
The Minister and the hon. Member for New Forest are highly selective in what they say. They talk about on-train inspection—a new jargon phrase like "feedback" or "ongoing situation"—but fail to inform the House that, while continental railways have the same basic gauge between the rails, they have larger loading gauges. Continental wagons and railway coaches, for example, cannot easily be transported over the whole of British railways, but over selected routes that have been specially widened for the purpose. Such coaches have more room on them for people to move around and are more substantial, so on-train inspection is more easy.
All in all, the continental example—invoked by the hon. Member for New Forest as though it were some sort of magical formula; because it comes from somewhere else, it must be good—has no substance in it. British Rail has a system of barriers for entry on to the railway system because when the railways were built in the 19th century it was decided that the railway system should be safe and that people should be kept in a regulated fashion from approaching what is essentially a dangerous movement of heavy vehicles at high speeds on a railway track. Therefore, we have a statutory obligation to fence the

track on both sides to prevent access by both human beings and animals. On the continent, there is an open system because they decided that that was suitable, and they are more used to it. There is no reason or justification for us to shrug our shoulders and say, "Ah, it is the continental system. Therefore it must be good."
Human beings working at barriers can not only check tickets but give help, advice and guidance. They can help women who are experiencing difficulties with their toddlers or the elderly person with parcels who is confused by the station's set-up because changes have occurred. Such changes baffle people. My mother has never been into Bradford interchange, built in 1974, because they changed all the bus stops and she was sure that it would confuse her. She is now 92, and it is pretty certain that she will not be catching buses to Bradford interchange. The elderly are confused when things are changed. If they have to go to public stations, they find it helpful to have staff at barriers to guide and inform them.
British Rail management always manages to provide an adequate number of personnel for occasions such as this. It does not abandon the box under the Strangers Gallery because it has to abandon involvement in the Bill. Indeed, it has sent along what appears to be a handsome contingent. I wish that it would apply the same standards to stations. At the inquiry into the proposed closure of the Settle-Carlisle line, four representatives of British Rail's management were present. One of them presented a statement and explained that he and his colleagues could not take part in the discussion because they were not to be subjected to debate. What a splendid example to set! Would it not be better if they were all busy working on the Settle-Carlisle line to promote it and thereby to attract more passengers? That argument seemed to go down extremely well with all the objectors to the proposed closure, but it did not bring much of a gleam to the eyes of the British Rail representatives.

Mr. Snape: I would not want my hon. Friend to accuse me of undue cynicism, but he should bear in mind that many members of British Rail's senior management spent their formative years travelling around the country in chauffeur-driven cars in the 1960s looking for parts of the system to close down.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. We remember the various dodges that were used to enable British Rail to present a case for the closure of certain lines, when that action was entirely unjustified.
We are told in the summary that it is estimated that Network SouthEast is losing £36 million a year in fare evasion. That sounds grandiose, but that statement amounts to a guess. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has said, there is no certainty as British Rail cannot know about successful fare evasion. I am sure that if it did know about evasion it would consider prosecution or publishing the names of evaders, for example. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I think that it is a guess that has been put on the top side, as it were. After all, it would be human to present a figure that is on the high side so as to frighten a few hon. Members into providing their assistance in getting the Bill through the House.
British Rail has produced a figure for the cost of vandalism that is more quantifiable. It estimates that each year the bill is £20 million. If British Rail is each year to


shed more staff and introduce machines, vandalism will increase. That must be a major cause of concern for all hon. Members. If more stations are to be devoid of human activity in the form of British Rail employees, there is a potential danger for passengers both in stations and as travellers on trains. For example, things can be thrown on to railway tracks that may endanger lives because they affect the smooth and safe running of the trains.
What will British Rail do about that? The Minister will know that British Rail has a statutory duty to protect trains from people by means of fencing. The Bill does not provide for any sections of any existing Acts to be repealed, so is British Rail embarking on a criminal activity by introducing the Bill? By removing barriers it will be failing in its obligation to prevent the public from getting to its trains. It is proposed that there shall be open stations. It is urged upon us that we should adopt the wonderful continental system in which people can have free access to trains. That will mean that toddlers will have access to them at a time when there is more electrification. Is British Rail telling us that it will provide more access to trains for toddlers, teenagers and the elderly, for example, when there is third-rail DC electrification at 500 volts? The management's justification for this approach is, to say the least, somewhat suspect.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has my hon. Friend received a letter from British Rail in which it makes a virtue of the fact that it will provide far more points of access to stations so that it will be possible for the public to get on to trains at all convenient points? That reinforces the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing.

Mr. Cryer: My comments are derived precisely from that claim by British Rail. It is clear that it wishes to make stations much more open. I am probably the only hon. Member who has accompanied a member of the railway inspectorate along a line with the man who became the chief railway inspecting officer. When he inspected the Worth valley branch line to ensure that it was safe, he said that fences had to be in place. We had to provide the inspecting officer with a certificate that stated that the faulty fencing to which he had drawn attention had been repaired to stop the very access that British Rail is now saying is one of the continental delights that we must adopt.

Dr. Marek: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind that British Rail removed fences at level crossings. Many automatic level crossings were introduced about seven or eight years ago and many people lost their lives because of a lowering of standards. There were arguments—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with level crossings. We should be debating penalties for fare evasion. That has nothing to do with level crossings at this stage.

Mr. Cryer: I think that my hon. Friend was using an illustration, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating level crossings

Mr. Cryer: That is right. We are dealing with access and the removal of barriers at stations. We are saying that it is better to have British Rail staff at stations to prevent

people running on to the platforms if, for example, they are drunk. The same applies to young children and others. In other words, the consideration applies to all those who may suffer injury by falling off the edge of the platform. The same argument applies to level crossings, but I shall not cross that path again.
The Minister was gloating when he spoke of less public money, but surely it is a good thing to have a good public service. There should be staff at stations to help and guide and to maintain property in good order. There should be staff to look after our public service and to protect facilities from vandalism. That is where British Rail should be making the savings that it and we want to be made.
I am not advancing an argument on behalf of those who seek to dodge fares. Instead, I am saying that we should maintain and improve the good safety system that British Rail has been operating. By historical development, the system that British Rail has maintained—it is required to do so by law—depends on a closed system. It seems that we are being asked to take a step that is very much in the wrong direction.
I urge British Rail to reconsider its policy. It should leave the Bill for six months and start to employ people at stations instead of removing them and leaving a bare platform with a bus shelter. We are all aware that such shelters are often damaged. We condemn vandalism, but it happens.
My hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for West Bromwich, East have referred to abandoned stations. If staff are taken from stations, the risks increase, particularly for women. The Employment Bill is in Committee and that will remove protection for women. Under that Bill, women will either have to do night work or face losing unemployment benefit if they refuse to take that job.
Stations which should have barriers and a staff presence will not be staffed because, as the hon. Member for New Forest said, the Bill will mean that more stations will be unstaffed. Therefore, thanks to the Employment Bill, more women will visit stations late at night and will not see a friendly face and receive help from station staff. They would need such assistance in the early evening in winter or late at night in summer when station lamps might not be working as well as they should. Mobile maintenance teams carry out maintenance work at the moment. However, as stations are inspected only at intervals, repairs are carried out infrequently and at times the lamps are out of action.
There is Government pressure to make cuts and we are witnessing the all-too-willing acquiescence of British Rail senior management. It would have been helpful if British Rail management had the co-operation and help of the unions because union members will have to carry out the work. The board members endorsed and dreamed up the proposal in their executive suites. They have chauffeurs waiting at their doors, but those chauffeurs have not been sacked. Similarly, the executive cook in the executive suite still has a job.
British Rail senior management will not be travelling on the trains. It would be good if Robert Reid left his executive suite, gathered the lads and lasses around him and said, "I'm going to do the Leeds Pullman express today and I want you all to come with me because I'm going to demonstrate how to deal with difficult passengers." That would lift morale on British Rail. However, he is not going to do that and nor is anyone else


in the executive suites. They will stick tight to their Italian leather chairs and send out the orders. They will not travel on the trains because they would meet too many people who would like to take up complaints directly with them. If those passengers discovered who they were, the executives would never get off some of the trains, particularly those on the overused, generally run-down urban services.
Trade unions members will have to impose the fare penalties. As my hon. Friends have already said, there may be drunks on platforms late at night. People might become intoxicated because they have been encouraged to drink by the advertising in this enterprise culture, for example, on ITV, and of course Sky television will be beaming around its adverts to booze more. I will not follow those electronic beams. I will refer to the Bill. It will be very difficult for station staff to impose penalties on drunks. Railway staff have already called repeatedly for more late-night protection.
There will be other difficulties. While the hon. Member for New Forest has assured us that there will be no targets for collecting penalty fares from fare dodgers, or alleged fare dodgers, we must remember that British rail personnel are subject to an intransigent and unco-operative management which has imposed on them the most remarkable rule—if staff criticise British Rail publicly, they can he sacked. It should be made clear that if anyone in British Rail has a complaint, he should go to his Member of Parliament, because it will be a breach of privilege for British Rail management, or anyone else, to deny a person the right of consulting his elected representative. There is the onus and constant pressure on British Rail staff to collect fares. At the same time, they cannot grumble or complain about it being a bad system. Therefore, it seems that this is not the time to introduce the Bill.
My third point concerns the deterrent to travel—although I make no defence for the fare dodger. At present, the system is that the fare can be paid on checking. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East pointed out that in the 1960s the Government were busy eroding British Rail's network. More closures are in the pipeline.
The question of the Settle to Carlisle line has been raised in the House on several occasions, with 29 petitions against its closure presented over the past 12 months. I am not happy with the powers envisaged being granted to British Rail management, because they will provide another technique for justifying a railway's closure. A set, group or gang of ticket inspectors could act as a potential deterrent to travel.
I should not like to see that happening on a line such as the Settle-Carlisle. That line belies the need for the Bill. Its passenger revenue has increased from £1 million to £1·7 million. There is already fares collection by guards on the train, but not the imposition of fare penalties. That system has, by and large, worked extremely well, with increased revenue to the extent I have described. One asks why the Bill is necessary when a line that was making a loss five years ago is now making a healthy profit—and with expenditure on the Ribblehead viaduct reducing from £4·5 million to £900,000, it is paying its way. If the Minister intervenes again, I hope that it will be to make the short, dramatic statement that he will make British Rail keep open the Settle to Carlisle line—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the Bill before the House, and not discuss the Settle to Carlisle line.

Mr. Cryer: It is very tempting to stay on the subject of the Settle to Carlisle line, because it is so important that it be retained. However, I accede entirely to your request, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dr. Marek: I wish to mention the Settle to Carlisle, but in connection with the Bill. Is it not true to say that the Bill is unnecessary in respect of that line, because the two or three-car sets that it uses enables guards or ticket collectors to walk through the whole train between each station, thereby controlling the travel of every passenger arid making fare evasion impossible? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no need for the Bill's provisions on the Settle to Carlisle line?

Mr. Cryer: I agree with my hon. Friend. The record is there to see. The Settle to Carlisle line is a friendly line, and the imposition of fare penalties will breed a great deal of antagonism. The Settle to Carlisle line has developed an enormous amount of goodwill and friendliness over the years that it has been rescued from the clutches of closure by British Rail's management.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that on a line such as the Settle to Carlisle, which is used a great deal by walkers and climbers, an unsatisfactory aspect of unmanned stations, and of unreliable train services on occasions, is that a traveller can arrive at the station and not be sure whether the train he wants has arrived and departed? That is important in respect not only of the Settle to Carlisle line but of others. If deferred ticket machines are to be installed, there must also be a system that will make clear whether trains have yet passed through a station.

Mr. Cryer: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point. I shall deal with a few of the Bill's details in a moment, but first I wish to emphasise that the Settle to Carlisle line offers a good example of why the Bill is not necessary.
Clause 4(3)(a)(ii) provides an exemption, for a passenger will not be able to pay a penalty fare if,
when he transferred from another train service … there were no facilities for either the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey or the sale of deferred fare authorities.
Where I now live I have the opportunity of going either to Bradford interchange or to Shipley station. The status of Shipley station has recently been enhanced. To avoid responsibility for closing the Wortley curve—another argument that I shall not go into now—British Rail has transferred London trains from Bradford interchange to Bradford Forster Square.
None the less, Shipley station is at present open only in the morning. If trains are leaving at about the moment of closure and someone has to run to catch his train, he may be confronted with a ticket collector saying, "You have no ticket. You could have bought one at Shipley station.." Instead of just handing over the fare, as would normally happen, that person must write within 21 days an explanation giving the station's opening and closing times. the time of the train and the time of arrival, as outlined in clause 4(7). Surely that will encourage antagonism and make it more difficult for the traveller to decide whether to


sprint for a train. As it happens, the booking office at Shipley station is probably 120 yd from the main platform for the Keighley-Shipley-Leeds trains.
Moreover, a person is not liable for a penalty if he has no opportunity to obtain a ticket on a conductor-train service. Many of the urban services around Bradford are crowded, particularly at peak times. It will be extremely difficult for the conductor to get around to people who get on at, say, Bramley on the way to Leeds or uphill into Bradford, where no ticket collection service is available. Again, if they are sitting in a corner with others standing, the ticket collector may go past them. They will then become engaged in an argument about whether it was possible for them to obtain tickets on a conductor-train service.
That has occurred to me because I have travelled on a train and bought a ticket at the end of my journey, but have been ignored by the conductor—who has been involved in giving out tickets—in the press of people. On the short journeys for which the Bill is supposed to be designed, it is possible to reach one's destination before the conductor has had time to go round.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May I raise a similar point? Clause 5 provides that the penalty
shall not apply to a person travelling on a conductor train service whose journey begins at a non-ticket station".
There is then the problem of deciding what constitutes a conductor train and a non-ticket station, which is dealt with in clause 2.
At Dronfield station, where I alight for my constituency, there is someone selling tickets on the platform. That would seem to make Dronfield a non-ticket station, when that person is not there. Clause 2, however, states that
'non-ticket station' means a station on a conductor train service at which there is no provision at any time for the sale of tickets".
There is a possiblilty of fare tickets being available at Dronfield station, but it is an open station: people can come in at the last moment and jump on to a train on which a conductor or inspector is going round with his machine. Will the Bill catch those who run to get on a train at the last minute because at the other end of the platform there may be someone with a machine issuing tickets?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has illustrated the point that I made about Shipley station. He has demonstrated that Shipley is not unique. I also know Dronfield station, which was reopened through the efforts of a Labour-controlled local authority, and very welcome it is, too. However, the provisions will create difficulties.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to change the penalty fare. Every Government Department has introduced orders under which penalties or charges have soared. Increases by order of 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent. are not unknown. On occasion the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been advised by our counsel that some of the increases in charges are so great that they can be regarded as an unusual use of the power.
One of my reservations about the measure is that powers are to be given to the Secretary of State to make orders that would change the penalty fares as he chooses.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend will have seen the Minister give us a nod and a wink, suggesting that he

would have been happier if provision had been made for the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Does my hon. Friend believe that the promoters ought to give an undertaking to make that change in Committee?

Mr. Cryer: I agree entirely. An undertaking ought to be given to amend the Bill to provide for the affirmative procedure. The Minister—as Ministers are wont to do—gave the usual smug assurance that statutory instruments can be debated, but he did not say that they cannot be amended. They have to be either agreed to or rejected. Our examination of statutory instruments is shockingly inadequate. There ought to be more than an hour and a half in which to debate them. Some statutory instruments are more comprehensive and detailed than many major Acts, and more time ought to be spent on examining them.
I hope that the promoter will give us an assurance that in Committee he will seek to change the Bill to provide for the affirmative procedure. He knows that under the negative procedure the possibility of time being given to debate a prayer depends on who signs it and on whether the Government are in a generous mood and award an hour and a half for debate. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that a prayer can be debated for an hour and a half from 10 o'clock. If there is a Division at 10 o'clock, debating time is automatically cut by 15 or 20 minutes. The time for debate is limited. Important powers are to be given to the Secretary of State, so the affirmative procedure would be better.
A safeguard is provided in clause 8(3). It says:
A warning notice stating the amount of the penalty fare shall be posted at every station at which persons may start to travel on a train service, in such a position as to be readily visible to prospective passengers and shall (however expressed) indicate the circumstances … in which they may be liable to pay a penalty fare.
That is an absolute, not a qualified, obligation. It does not say.
so far as reasonably practicable.
No penalties are to be imposed if notices are not provided. If somebody is made the subject of a penalty fare and says, "I did not know about it", no provision is made for him to say that at Shipley or Dronfield station, or wherever it may be, a notice had not been posted. As it is to be an absolute obligation, it might help if the Bill were changed to provide for the members of the British Railways board to be prosecuted for breach of statutory duty if warning notices are not provided. No such provision is made in the Bill because members of British Railways board do not intend to lay themselves open to action if they fail to carry out their duty. The honest passenger will find, when circumstances conspire against him, that a penalty is imposed on him or her.
The Bill represents another step backwards by British Rail. More stations that look ugly and abandoned will still be open to the public. I would not like to catch a train from Forster Square station at night. There is no sign of any human presence. The huge, formerly magnificent midland railway terminus in Bradford is now a gaunt, empty shell with two railway tracks running into it. Late at night it presents a daunting prospect for me, but for many women and more slightly-built people it must seem considerably more daunting.
I do not want a British Rail of this character, but one which is well served, and which provides passengers with an excellent service from good staff who are well trained and committed to serving the people. That is what the staff


want to do, but they are inhibited by provisions that seem to say to them: "Brothers and sisters, you are shortly going to be made redundant, with a ticket machine in your place." If hon. Members were told that they were going to be replaced by ticket machines, that would not exactly increase their morale. I sometimes think that if we put the board and the management elite on the platforms and ticket machines in the boardroom, we would probably get a better system.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: With the leave of the House, I shall comment on some of the points made in what has been an interesting debate.
It was perhaps inevitable that such a scheme would attract criticism of how it would work. However, I hope that I have also detected in the debate a consensus that something should be done to correct evasion. Hon. Members from all parties no doubt have their own pet schemes for dealing with it.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talked about the infringement of civil liberties. The same argument could be levelled against the meter maids—the traffic wardens—who presume a person guilty and put a ticket on his car, even though he may have had a valid reason for not paying the meter. If that is regarded as an infringement of civil liberty, I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman has made much fuss about it. We are introducing not a criminal offence but a civil one, which will be a deterrent to people who do not pay their fare.
Concern has been expressed about the authorised personnel. I think that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to people who impersonate driving instructors. He will know that the Bill sets out clear rules about how a person issued with a penalty fare ticket should seek the documentation of the authorised person. Frankly, in written terms, that is as fair as one can he. Inevitably, some people will try to dress up and cheat the passenger, but the passenger has the opportunity to seek the official's identification if he is at all concerned.
Deferred payment machines are already in place on the London-Southend-Tilbury line, though perhaps not in the numbers which we would eventually want. There are 100 automatic ticket machines in place and 1,000 on order. No matter how many are required, they will be provided.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the large numbers of people already being prosecuted. Earlier, I gave a figure of between 3,000 and 4,000. As the majority of offenders are within the £2 fare bracket, and since the national loss is about £50 million, about 20 million individual journeys may be involved. However, I accept the point made by other hon. Members that those are, inevitably, estimates. I was not trying, at the outset, to present them as hard and fast figures.
Over the years I have discussed a fair number of British Rail Bills with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He raised a number of important issues, many of them referring to the whole question of how a passenger who is challenged, but who might have good reason for not having a ticket, could be dealt with. Since these are important points it might be helpful to the House if I were to take a moment or two to indicate some of the types of discretion that one would expect to see exercised by the authorised person. This will come up in their training.
First of all, there are the procedures to be adopted by the authorised person when a passenger refuses or fails to pay. "Listen to the passenger for an explanation" is the very first and, I hope, golden rule. "If it is immediately obvious that British Rail is at fault, issue a ticket at ticket-office price. If there is reason for suspicion, press for details. If not satisfied, report to penalty fares office with brief statement from passenger. Check details given—name and address." I accept the point about the person giving a fake name and address—a matter raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). Obviously one cannot guard totally against that. "Issue penalty fares notice and tell the passenger that he has 21 days to pay or to appeal."

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What guidance is to be given to the inspector in respect of someone whose name coincides with that of a person who is well known? I have a constituent whose name is the same as that of a famous person. Every time my constituent gives his name to the police or to anyone else the first comment is, "Pull the other one." There is great difficulty in insisting that the correct name has been given. Anyone who has a name like Margaret Thatcher and is not the Prime Minister has problems.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I understand that there can be serious problems for some people, but I hope that the discretion to be exercised by the authorised person will take account of that. These are the sorts of questions that would be subject to discretion at the time or after the notice had been issued.
Let me come to some of the explanations that may be given. "Facilities not available." The authorised person's discretion should deal with most of these cases at the time; hopefully they will not go any further. "Waiting time excessive." "I thought the ticket was valid." "Office was closed." "Did not know about the machines." "Did not understand how the machine worked." "The last time I used a machine I lost my money." Since these machines are very reliable that is an excuse which, one hopes, will not he taken too seriously. "I can't read". That is a perfectly reasonable and valid excuse. "Did not know what ticket to get." "I fell asleep." "I did not realise I had got to my destination." "I am foreign." "The machine did not work." "I got on the wrong train." "I am pregnant, under the doctor." "I got on the train to help someone and was carried off." "I have been on the station but have not travelled." "I am disabled and could not get to the office."
If true, these are the sorts of things that the inspector, the authorised person, will clearly exempt.

Mr. Snape: It might have enlightened the House more if the hon. Gentleman had said who exactly will have to pay the penalty, given the list of exemptions that we have just heard.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that all those exemptions, or matters for discretion, are sensible, that these are problems that could genuinely occur. I want to make it crystal clear that the person travelling on the British Rail network who wants to buy a ticket has nothing to fear. A whole lot of people to whom I have just referred have nothing to fear. But when persistent offenders, over the years, undermine the


structure of the railway management and, by so doing, cause increases in ticket prices, and so on, the board has a responsibility to do something about it.

Mr. Cryer: Does not the board also have a responsibility to ensure that young children do not have access to the railway? How does it reconcile that duty with the removal of barriers?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: There is no question of unstaffed stations or of a great empty concourse. I remember sponsoring a Bill about 10 years ago which increased the powers of the British Rail police. I also remember the resistance to it in various parts of the House. There is no question of allowing every drunk to wander on the track or on to a train.

Mr. Tony Banks: Was the hon. Gentleman giving examples of excuses which would be acceptable, or was it an exhaustive list? One could think of others such as "My local Member of Parliament stole my ticket, guv."
When British Rail was adequately staffed—it was known for being labour-intensive and for providing a good service once—was ticket fraud greater or less?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Ticket fraud is not new. In the past, the procedure was to use the Act to which I referred earlier. It is still in place. What is proposed is different—these are not criminal penalties. There has always been ticket fraud.

Mr. Banks: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It must be true. Nevertheless, will he answer my question? Has there been a significant increase in ticket fraud? If not, why is British Rail presenting this Bill?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: There has been an increase. Much of it is opportunistic. Even between Second Reading in another place one year ago and now, the figure for Network SouthEast has increased quite steeply. There is a serious problem which needs to be resolved.

Mr. Snape: If what the hon. Gentleman has said is true, and if he says it we accept that it is true, how much of the estimated £36 million does he expect will be saved by the Bill, bearing in mind the list of possible exemptions that he has given?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I tried to cover that point in my opening speech. The board considers that a realistic figure would be a reduction by £9 million. That is its first objective, but if the scheme goes further, that is in everybody's interests.
Hon. Members spoke about ticket machines. Deferred payment machines take coins between 5p and £1 in value. Ticket machines are currently able to take £5 and £10 notes, but we hope to go up to £20 notes.

Mr. Banks: But that will buy only a single ticket on the Underground.

Dr. Marek: Perhaps I might bring the hon. Gentleman back to the £9 million saving. Has the board calculated how much that is lost through evasion could be saved by employing an extra 1,000 or 2,000 people?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The board regards this as the most efficient way in which to do it, given that the barrier system

in some stations leads to great queuing and crowding. I well remember when I was Member of Parliament for West Lewisham in south London, where there is a railway station at Forest Hill. Every hon. Member who represents a London constituency will know what the queuing was like at the various termini during the rush hour. Obviously it is in everyone's interests that people get off trains and reach their destinations as quickly as possible.

Mr. Banks: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come with me on a trip to Stratford station which is part of Network South East, the Central line and the Docklands light railway. The situation is just as he described although all the equipment is modern. Everyone comes up to one barrier, one single turnstile. It is crazy. the queue stretches all the way back towards the platform. What is the point of getting to the station more quickly to wait longer to go through a single turnstile?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes the point better than I could. The new procedure is being adopted precisely to provide better access to and from stations.
The hon. Member for Wrexham referred to violence. The guards or ticket collectors who are responsible for maintaining order on the railway network are aware of the very serious problems that they face. Not too long ago there was an incident in which someone was stabbed in the eye at the end of a journey when a number of vandals got off a train. As I pointed out earlier, that is exactly why it is planned that the people authorised to carry out the scheme should work in pairs, or in larger teams, because such a danger exists. We hope that those who work in those very difficult and responsible positions will recognise that the proposals in the Bill are in their interests just as much as they are in the interests of the travelling public.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of collection on the trains. I wish to make it quite clear that although there can be ticket inspections on the trains there can also be ticket inspections at stations. The Bill does not in any way rule out the fact that the scheme can be operated on the station as well as on the train. However, the objective is that it should take place on trains during shorter journeys. However, I take the point that was made by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish that some shorter journeys involve trains where it would be difficult to carry out such checks. The board will not introduce the system on any part of the railway network until it is satisfied that the criteria which I set out originally are in place. That is why the first likely candidate for the system will be the Tilbury-Southend-London route.
Turning to the speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, of course I take his point about the loading gauges. I am sufficiently well aware of railway operations to know the difference between what happens here and what happens on the continent, but for whatever reasons, open stations have become commonplace throughout Europe, and Britain is now almost alone in the operation of the barrier system which, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out, can lead to a great deal of queueing and inconvenience.

Mr. Banks: There is a problem at Stratford because British Rail Network SouthEast is trying to operate an open station system and London Regional Transport is installing new barriers. That is the nonsense. The barrier is


brand new and has been in place for only about 12 months so there is a total conflict between Network SouthEast and London Regional Transport. Surely that is another good reason for having a strategic transport authority for London.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is another matter, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. There is an inter-relationship between LRT and British Rail and where there is an interface as has just been described by the hon. Gentleman it is in everyone's interest to have a commonality policy. No doubt his remarks will have been heard by the board.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the figures. The hon. Member for Wrexham thought that the figures may be too low but the hon. Member for Bradford, South thought that they were too high. I accept that the figures are not precise. They are estimated figures and both the hon. Gentlemen could be correct. However, there have been meetings with the National Union of Railwaymen on that issue. Those meetings will continue and, as the Bill passes through its various stages, there will be opportunities for the discussions to continue.
It saddened me to hear hon. Members criticise the chairman of British Rail. He is very much a railwayman, unlike some chairmen. I was sorry to hear hon. Members attack him as if he knew nothing about the railway system. He started work on the railways as a young lad, much against the wishes of his family. He has been a distinguished chairman and I would like to think that the House believes that he has done a good job for British Rail.
Having sought to clarify many of the questions raised by hon. Members, I reiterate my view that this is a good scheme. Clearly, trial and error will show how good it is but I do not think that any of us would rest easy if we allowed a system to continue in which large sums of money are lost which could be used to the benefit of British Rail, and, more importantly, to the benefit of the travelling public.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 59.

Division No. 76]
[9.41 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Devlin, Tim


Buck, Sir Antony
Dorrell, Stephen


Budgen, Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Burt, Alistair
Durant, Tony


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fallon, Michael





Fenner, Dame Peggy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Miller, Sir Hal


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mills, Iain


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Franks, Cecil
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Roger
Needham, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Gower, Sir Raymond
Patnick, Irvine


Gregory, Conal
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Portillo, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jack, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
:Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
summerson, Hugo


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knapman, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Wallace, James


Lawrence, Ivan
Widdecombe, Ann


Lightbown, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)



Maclean, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson


McLoughlin, Patrick
and Mr. Neil Thorne.


Mans, Keith





NOES


Armstrong, Hilary
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McFall, John


Buckley, George J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Callaghan, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Meale, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michael, Alun


Darling, Alistair
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dewar, Donald
Mullin, Chris


Dixon, Don
O'Brien, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Parry, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Eadie, Alexander
Pike, Peter L.


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ruddock, Joan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Salmond, Alex


Faulds, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Foster, Derek
Snape, Peter


Galbraith, Sam
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Grocott, Bruce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Haynes, Frank



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Martin Redmond.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of greater London and to the efficiency, economy and safety of the operation. Millions of pounds are being lost every year because the system lacks security. It is extremely important that those people who use the system and pay for its service should not suffer the cost while leaving many to get away without paying. According to the annual survey, it has been calculated that no less than £26 million a year is currently lost by London Regional Transport. That loss is far too big to be satisfactory. A proper system for reducing that discrepancy is needed and that is why the Bill is being introduced.
There are many good reasons why the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before the measure can be introduced. He has to be satisfied that there is adequate staffing, adequate availability of machines, that the arrangements for monitoring defective machines are adequate and that ticket inspectors are properly trained. There must be adequate publicity about the introduction of the scheme and there must be a disputes and appeals procedure. Those are important matters and the Secretary of State must examine them carefully and diligently. It would be wrong to assume that he was uncritical about the standards before he was prepared for the Bill to be introduced.
Most of us have suffered the inconvenience of using machines that are not up to standard, and in the past there have been many justifiable criticisms of ticket machines, especially those that are required to give change. Technology is moving quickly and in the near future we can expect major strides in computer and other electronic technology. We think that it is now possible to produce extremely reliable and effective machines. With that in mind we have to grasp the opportunity of being able to take advantage of modern technology, thereby reducing the volume of evasion and fraud in the system.
Questions will be asked about the security of the system and in that respect London Regional Transport is important because the volume of traffic is such that it is not possible for tickets to be checked on trains in the same way as, for example, they are checked on British Rail. The present maximum fare on LRT is £2·90 and a penalty of £10 in relation to that is appropriate. The penalty on the Docklands light railway or on the buses is £5. There is a major difference compared with any system proposed for British Rail, and that is to take account of the lower charges on the Docklands light railway and the buses. The penalty has been geared accordingly.
These powers are required as part of a new system of fare collection and the recognition of the importance of staff being introduced to the customers on the train. The system has worked extremely well on the Docklands light

railway where the train captains have a close involvement with the passengers and perform tasks in addition to the mere collection and checking of tickets.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: London Docklands railway is accepting the same philosophy as British Rail—that of open stations and fare collection and checking on the trains—but the rest of the tube system is using appalling barriers. Is that not illogical? If fare collection on vehicles, which has cut down violence on the trains, if not on the stations, can work, why should it not work on the rest of the tube system?

Mr. Thorne: The introduction of a train captain has been extremely effective and the system can be reassuring to the passengers. The collection or validation of tickets has been a major problem on the Docklands light railway, so that system is to be replaced. It is not possible for that system to operate completely satisfactorily, so it is necessary to make that change.
Staff can do much and they should be much more involved in the success of the operation. There are many opportunities and it is no longer valid to continue the operation as it has been run for many years. Although fraud has always been a factor, it has substantially increased in recent years and if it is allowed to increase still further, it will be unacceptable, particularly for the genuine, honest fare-paying members of the public who are the vast majority of those who use this transport. It would be wrong to allow those who wish to indulge in fraud to get away with it any longer.
It is important that we realise that there will be major provisions to ensure that genuine travellers who are not trying to evade the fare will be able to call in aid an excuse. The passenger will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if there are no facilities available for ticket sales at the station at which the journey was started. If the passenger transfers to London Underground or Docklands light railway from British Rail and the British Rail station at which he starts has no facilities for sale of tickets, and if a notice was displayed at the station where he started the journey—whether British Rail, London Underground or Docklands light railway station—stating that it was permissible for passengers to travel from that station without a ticket or if an authorised person in uniform informed the passenger to that effect, he would not be liable to pay the penalty.
If a person is asked for his ticket or authority by the London Underground or Docklands light railway authorised official and says that he was not able to obtain it for one or more of those reasons, then it is for the London Underground or the Docklands light railway to prove that the reason is not correct. The onus is on them. If the passenger wishes to raise one of these reasons later, he has 21 days to do so from the day after the completion of the journey. Only then comes the transfer of the burden of proof. If the passenger does not provide the explanation in these terms on the spot or within 21 days, he has to prove that one of the defences applies.
This seems to be an effective and sensible way to conduct this arrangement. It is important that we should introduce it as early as possible so that we can take advantage of the available modern technology so as substantially to reduce the number of people who are defrauding their fellow passengers—a number that is likely to increase if we do not take some firm steps against such a practice.

Mr. Tony Banks: Whenever I listen to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) my memory goes back to county hall in the 1970s, when he was a great believer in strategic planning. If I remember rightly, he was the chair of the central area planning board. Unfortunately, he has now changed his position, but in the past he was committed to some form of strategic planning for London. I hope that eventually he will return to that view.
I am against those who evade payment on London Transport or any other form of public transport. Fare evasion imposes a greater burden on honest fare-paying passengers. We want to ensure that everyone contributes his or her share to the cost. It is not surprising that in principle we all agree that something should be done to reduce fare evasion.
It is also not surprising that more and more members of the travelling public are evading their fares, or attempting to do so. That is connected with the fact that London passenger fares increased by an average of 12·4 per cent. only last month, which was twice the level of inflation. The cost of a weekly inner zone travelcard increased by nearly 20 per cent. When the Government were stripping control of London Regional Transport from the Greater London council in preparation for the abolition of the council. I well remember the then Secretary of State saying that fares would increase broadly in line with inflation. That is another promise that the Government did not intend to keep or have somehow forgotten since control was taken from the GLC in 1984.
The more that the Government put pressure on London Transport to push up the level of fares, the more the public will evade the payment of fares. That is because in many instances they will not be able to meet the new fare levels. I think especially of the unemployed, the low paid and the homeless. There is a correlation between ever-increasing fares and the ever-increasing level of evasion.
The withdrawing of staff leads to an open invitation to the travelling public to avoid paying their fares. I said during the Second Reading of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill that this morning I travelled from East Ham on the District line after a meeting at Newham town hall. There was no one staffing the ticket office. A queue of would-be travellers was waiting to put money into the machine. I did not notice whether it demanded the exact fare or whether it gave change. I heard the train entering the station and as I was anxious to get to the House, as I always am, I decided to leg it down the stairs and jump on the train. I paid my fare at the other end of the journey, but if I had been someone not as well heeled as an hon. Member I might have decided to declare that I had come from the Monument or Tower Hill instead of stating the truth.
The more that the Government force London Regional Transport or any other transport undertaking to withdraw the number of staff on stations, the more the travelling public will seek to avoid paying their fares. It is noticeable that London Underground Ltd. remains committed to substantial staff reductions in its determination to cut costs. I understand that it is about to implement the first stage of its action stations. Such a term suggests that something is taking place when often the reverse is the case. Under the action stations programme, a pilot scheme is to be carried out on the Metropolitan line at 13 stations

from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Amersham and Chesham. The present complement of staff will be reduced from 169 to 142. As 20 of the 142 will be ticket examiners, the effective number of staff on stations will be 122, a reduction of about 25 per cent. In addition, London Underground Ltd. has announced the introduction of automatic ticket machines—they are now in place in almost all Underground stations—which will mean the loss of another 1,200 jobs.
It is true that London Underground has said that nearly half those jobs will be redeployed on general station duties and that will increase the availability of staff to help passengers. Nevertheless, the implication of the cuts is that there will be a reduction of about one sixth in the number of staff on London Underground. The more staff that British Rail and London Underground remove from stations, the more fare evasion will increase.
I asked the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) who promoted the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill whether there was any sign of an increase in fare evasion on British Rail in recent years. If it had not increased, why on earth was British Rail proposing such a scheme? The answer was that it had increased. Why cannot Ministers see that there is a correlation between a continual reduction in the number of staff on stations and an increase in ticket evasion?
When British Rail and the Underground were known to be more labour intensive, there was less fraud. There were also more jobs on the system. It is nonsense for the Government to suggest that they are not connected with the problems on British Rail and the Underground.
I very much oppose the Bill because I think that it is cosmetic. It misses the target. It is not directed at the real cause of fare evasion on the Underground or on British Rail, for the reasons that I have given so far.
The Bill refers to fares on buses and the fixed penalties that will be imposed on them. Bus fares are slightly lower than those on the Underground. Perhaps that has something to do with the relative economic prosperity of bus travellers in comparison with Underground travellers. There must be some connection there.
The system is moving towards fewer staff. I have heard Minister after Minister at the Dispatch Box say that the travelling public likes one-person operated buses. I use those buses frequently. I cannot understand why I always manage to travel on one when none of the passengers seems to be happy. I make a point of talking to my fellow travellers and I ask them whether they like the service. The majority of opinion is completely against one-person-operated buses in London. That is the view of the passengers and of other road users.
There are insufficient controls over parking restrictions in the capital. More and more cars and lorries therefore pile up behind one-person-operated buses which stay at a stop for a long time while the poor old bus driver tries to ensure that everyone pays the fare. He must ensure that no one nips through the exit doors—-I have seen that happen frequently.
It is strange that it is apparently OK continually to reduce the number of people working on the mass transit systems, while on the more luxurious transport systems there are more and more people. Only a very strange airline would try to sell the idea of one-pilot-operated planes. A passenger might go to the entrance door and be greeted by the pilot who asks to see the ticket and then says, "Hang on a moment, I've just got to make sure that


the engines are started. I will come back and then I'll go round with the drinks after I've switched on to automatic pilot." No one would travel on a plane in those circumstances. The adverts give the idea that passengers are greeted by smiling staff and each airline boasts of its staff-to-passenger ratio. That is considered to be an absolute asset. Why can that not be true for the buses and trains?
The travelling public would prefer to be greeted by the bus conductor or conductress who would show him to a seat, come round with the drinks halfway through the journey and announce the estimated time of arrival and that the passenger would be travelling at approximately ground level. That is the kind of thing people want on London transport.
The more staff that there are operating the transport system, the less fare evasion there will be. That is an obvious and straightforward equation, and I am surprised that it has not sunk into the psyches of Conservative Members that more staffing is the best way of dealing with not only fare evasion but safety and comfort.
The question whether ticket dispensing machines will work has been raised. Some of them are OK, but unless they are regularly maintained—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, South accepts this—they will break down. There will be increasing frustration as people have to queue up to put their money into machines that do not work. The Evening Standard published several articles about the annoyance and anger caused to passengers on London Underground as they found the machines either were inoperative or rejected coins. There are also matters of comfort and safety that neither the Bill, the Government nor London Regional Transport have addressed.
I do not know how often you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, use London Underground, or how often Mr. Speaker or Ministers use it. I know that one or two Ministers do. One of the few advantages of our working hours in this place is that we can usually travel outside the rush hour, and not encounter its full horror. When we do have to travel at the height of the rush hour, it all comes back to us like some horrible nightmare, and we wonder how much longer we must put up with such conditions.
To that discomfort, we now have the added obstruction of automatic ticket barriers, which are supposed to do something about countering fare evasion and smoothing the passage of travellers through the system. All that is rubbish, as anyone who has encountered the new ticket barriers can testify. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to examine the barriers at Westminster underground station. Again, the Evening Standard reported that passengers avoid using the automatic barriers, preferring to queue up at the barrier staffed by a uniformed ticket collector, because other passengers get stuck as they put their tickets into those wretched automatic barriers and find that they do not open.
I do not know who invented that machinery, but whoever it was should be shut into one of those barriers and left there to rot for a few years. He might then realise that those fiendish contraptions, which are now ringing London stations, are unacceptable and a complete waste of public money. There are all kinds of capital items on which London Underground could have used that

investment to improve amenities. It is a useless system, just like that used for one-man buses. I guarantee that within a matter of a few years they will fall into disuse and the barriers will be permanently jammed open, if they are not already. I say that because I do not have a great deal of trust in the manufacturers' ability to make sure that those barriers do not jam. One day, people will ask who was the fool who invented the system.

Mr. Cecil Franks: I realise that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does not often stray very far from Newham, but if he were to cross the Channel and travel on the Paris metro he would find there a similar ticket barrier system that has worked well for many years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We are moving away from the subject of the Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the point.

Mr. Banks: I trust that that stricture was not directed at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was keeping to the point. I would very much like to go to Paris. I would go there with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), even though he is not quite my sort.

Dr. John Marek: If the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) had been here for the past three hours, he would have heard us exploring all the differences between the Paris metro and the Underground in this country.

Mr. Banks: It is all about capital investment, flat fares and a range of other issues. As one of my hon. Friends said, we should not make comparisons based on only one aspect of the system. If we are to make European comparisions we should compare the levels of capital investment, fares and wages, and the number of staff employed. Given our parsimonious attitude to investment, it is not surprising that London's transport system is approaching breaking point and we have to resort to silly, cosmetic, passenger-delaying manoeuvres.
The Bill does not address the real problem. It tinkers with it, as the Government do with so many other aspects of our transport life. The Government's transport policies, like their policies on other matters, actually produce problems; then they come up with some fart-arsed cosmetic idea to try to deal with the problems that they have created.
Ministers, with one or two honourable exceptions, do not use the public transport system. One of the reasons why all Back Benchers want to become Ministers is the chance of getting into one of those chauffeur-driven limousines, reading their red boxes with the light on. As we trudge down into Westminster underground station, the Ministers go past in their cars splashing mud all over us. If they knew what it was like to travel on public transport they would not be defending this wretched little Bill and the silly things that are happening to London transport.
The best way to deal with the problem of fare evasion would be to return to the flat-fare system that the GLC was trying to construct, and keeping fares at a low level. If the system is seen as a service, there will be no excuse for anyone to evade paying fares. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like in Paris."] As hon. Members say, that is what it is like in Paris.
We must start to look on transport as a social service, not a service that must always pay its way in straight


revenue terms. A proper social cost analysis for the economy as a whole, whether in London or the whole country, will show us that a flat-fare system would not only deal with the problem of fare evasion but would speed passengers through the system and take private cars off the road, because transport would become both cheap and attractive.
I suppose that the final solution would be a free transport system. I understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch—even for Members of Parliament—but given its economic benefits a flat-fare or free transport system would enable the service to pay for itself over and over again. It would be good for London, the travelling public, the Government and the economy.
I doubt whether that proposal will receive a very sympathetic hearing tonight, but the day will come when Labour Members are sitting on the Government Benches, and we shall return to the sane transport policy that the good old GLC tried to pioneer. That was stopped because we were having so much electoral success with our flat-fare system. Fare evasion was not the problem that it is now. When that day comes, I hope that I shall be standing at the back cheering on my good friend and saying what a wonderful job he is doing as a Minister—

Mr. Peter Snape: I shall be in Paris.

Mr. Banks: One hates to think who my hon. Friend might be in Paris with. Who knows? It might be me.
We should be looking at the new system and deciding that having got it wrong for so long we will get it right this time. This is no way to get it right, and that is why I shall vote against the Bill.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): There is a danger that after the contribution by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) my contribution will seem a little dry. However, it may be convenient if I set out the Government's attitude and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on explaining the Bill so lucidly.
The Government support the Bill, as they support the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill. We believe that London Regional Transport should be allowed the opportunity to levy penalty fares on passengers travelling on its services without having purchased the ticket required. London Underground Ltd. currently estimates that fare evasion costs £26 million a year. Such a measure can therefore benefit only the honest passenger and ease the burden on the taxpayer and the London ratepayer.
LRT of course already has powers to operate a penalty fares system under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, and specifically on the Docklands light railway under the London Docklands Railway Acts of 1984, 1985 and 1986. But because some dissatisfaction was expressed with these powers, the Government established a working group on penalty fares in May 1986 to review the principles which should apply to penalty fares schemes on public transport and to look at the existing provisions concerning LRT services. The Bill before the House is based closely upon the recommendations of the working group.
I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill. Suffice it to say that the Bill underwent considerable scrutiny in

another place and a number of changes were made, primarily to ensure that the honest passenger is fully protected. The Committee stage in this House will allow further consideration of those matters, and others.
It should, however, be stressed that an activating order issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be required to bring the powers in this Bill into effect. It will be for LRT to convince us that it can operate a fair and workable penalty fares system on the particular service or services for which it is proposed before an activating order will be issued.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it intended to introduce the system on one underground line at a time, or for the whole network?

Mr. Portillo: That will have to be considered at the time. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I set out some of the points on which we shall need to be satisfied.
Before any such order is made the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the system and that these include safeguards to ensure that honest passengers are not penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. He will therefore need to be assured that ticket offices are properly staffed, that the necessary ticket and deferred authority machines are in place, that there are satisfactory arrangements for monitoring and reparing machines, that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the new system, that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the system and are deployed appropriately, and that they have adequate indentification. He must also be assured that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place.

Mr. Peter Snape: You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thanks to your interpretation of the rules, that I said a few words a short time ago about the impact of the Bill on London.
Once again the Opposition find the assurances about the Secretary of State's involvement totally unconvincing. The long list of assurances that the Secretary of State will need before he gives permission for the penalty fare scheme to be implemented led to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). He asked a short but succinct question about whether the system would be introduced on one line or throughout the underground system. It was a sensible question, despite the Minister's mirth. How will the Secretary of State satisfy himself or herself that all the arrangements that the Minister outlined in his brief speech are satisfactory and have been implemented?
Secretaries of State are good at giving assurances but they are not very good at coming to the House to explain any breaches that have occurred. I hope that the Minister will intervene during the next 30 seconds and tell me just how the Secretary of State plans to enforce that long list of arrangements. That part of the Bill has not yet been fully thought out.
The figure of £26 million—the cost of fare evasion—has been plucked out of the air. Without repeating my earlier opinion that London Underground does not appear interested in collecting fares late at night, I must say that that estimate is as wild as the £36 million mentioned in connection with Network SouthEast.
When representatives of one of the railway unions approached London Underground Ltd. about the amount of late night fare evasion caused by lack of staff, the unofficial view, given him in an aside by management, was that it would not be worth paying staff to work overtime to collect the comparatively small number of fares that

were evaded. So when London Underground wants to save on staff, passengers are honest; when it wants a Bill like this passed, they are dishonest and they cost Londoners, and those of us who are unwilling Londoners for a few days a week, a sizeable sum.
Although briefer, the Minister's contribution was no more satisfactory on this Bill than on the previous one. I hope that my hon. Friends will act accordingly.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about ticket barriers. I also agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
There is a great deal of public concern about the deplorable extent to which London public transport has been run down, and it was incredible that the Minister should fail, in his very brief speech, to deal with that concern. He should be ashamed of himself.
When the issue of penalty fares on London Underground came up before, I brought up the subject of violence directed against staff—an immensely serious problem. Only a month earlier, staff at Leyton bus garage had stopped work to bury a colleague who had been killed. I wanted to know whether penalty fares would increase violence against staff who work for LRT. The reply I received failed to address the point and the Bill was expected to go through without doing so.
Now the legislation is here again. We have received only one document from LRT, and it arrived today, the day of Second Reading. Once again, it does not deal with our genuine concerns about the implications of penalty fares for the safety of staff. No one has said anything to me about them.
LRT is forcing this Bill through and treating hon. Members with contempt. That is reason enough to throw the Bill out. I cannot see a case for imposing penalties on travellers. Indeed, it should be the other way around: LRT should compensate passengers for the appalling journeys and risks they must undertake. I notice that British Telecom runs a scheme to reimburse subscribers whose phones are faulty. That is a bit gimmicky, but if it is good enough for Telecom, it should he used by LRT, too.
Serious safety problems for travellers have not been dealt with. I am sure we shall come to some of those in the debate tomorrow, so I do not want to encroach on them now. I realise that we are dealing with the question of penalty fares, but there is the question of such things as the public address system being inaudible and the risk that that can cause. There is also the question of dangerous overcrowding, which could well result in loss of life.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has my hon. Friend noticed the way in which the public address system on the London Underground always seems to start up just as the doors are closed? As the train is moving out of the station, one can just hear that there is a station further down the line where the lifts are out of action, causing delays. They do not seem to be able to get such messages announced on board the trains; they simply make the announcements at the stations, and it is very frustrating. Has my hon. Friend ever experienced that frustration?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, I have experienced it personally, and I have been told all sorts of horror stories about the public address system. Worst of all, a lot of the stories have been told to me after the Fennell report on the King's Cross disaster. It seems that that lesson has not been learnt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member has been led astray. I am sure he is going to come back to the question of the penalty fares.

Mr. Cohen: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing myself to be led astray. The question that was

raised was the automatic exit barriers, which, of course, is directly relevant to the penalty fares aspect. I am strongly opposed to the automatic exit barriers. As hon. Members will know, I have put down an early-day motion on that matter.
I think that automatic barriers are a danger in the event of a fire. They could result in more loss of life. A fire on the Underground is not just a one-off event; King's Cross is not a one-off affair. Tonight's "World in Action" reported that in a seven-week period between October and December there were 125 fires on the London Underground. Any one of those could have had fatal consequences, as could these barriers.
In this respect Fennell certainly has not been implemented. Many of the Fennell recommendations have not been implemented, yet these barriers are being put in place and creating problems.

Mr. Tony Banks: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work that he is doing in drawing attention to the shortcomings of this new automatic ticket gate system. Has he seen tonight's Evening Standard which says:
Fire chiefs demand Tube gate changes
Fire chiefs have ordered modifications to London Underground's controversial automatic gates".
They consider that they are unsafe and they would not allow speedy evacuation of a station in—God forbid—another King's Cross type disaster.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a general debate on this Bill dealing with the London Underground. It is a fairly narrow Bill restricted to penalty fares. and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Bill.

Mr. A. F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware that in the letter that we have had from the London Underground specific mention is made of the automatic ticket barriers and the new system of issuing and collecting tickets, to illustrate that it is improving collection. Surely, if it is reasonable for the promoters of the Bill to refer to the new ticketing machines and barriers as part of the build-up to the Bill, it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to make mention of them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The promoters, of course, do not decide what is in order in the House of Commons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I will endeavour to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The key point, of course, is that penalty fares and the automatic exit barriers are part of a joint package from LRT in relation to fare evasion. I am not in favour of either, particularly the automatic exit barriers, which I think are dangerous. They affect each other, so I think that it is in order for me to mention them. Others have concentrated on the subject.
I pay tribute to the Evening Standard for trying to expose the dangers. On "World in Action" tonight, Mr. Richard Warburton, director general of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, described barriers as an obstruction, especially where there is heat and smoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the article in the Evening Standard. I recently


tabled a parliamentary question about LRT and London Underground Ltd. not publishing the fire brigade reports. I asked the Minister about
all relevant correspondence, reports and documentation communicated between themselves and the fire authorities for London about the consequences for safety of automatic exit barriers installed at London underground stations; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister answered:
It is for London Regional Transport, London Underground Ltd. and the London fire and civil defence authority to consider whether to make available such exchanges."—[Official Report, 1 February 1989; Vol. 146, c.210.]
That is a negation of the Minister's responsibility, yet there is so much anxiety about the matter. They should publish what the fire brigade has to say about the subject.
The travelling public of London have a right to know if the fire brigade says that barriers are unsafe of if any station is unsafe. London Underground is going in the opposite direction. That must be stopped. It is up to the Minister to take more positive action. These barriers are a danger when there are large crowds. They run counter to the operation of London's underground. I shall consider fare evasion later—the unsafe implications of the barriers far outweigh any considerations about collecting fares. There is a far better way in which to collect fares—having proper staffing levels.
I know that we are short of time, so I shall not make a long speech. I could read any number of letters from women with children and passengers with luggage or shopping who find the barriers immensely inconvenient. Even commuting office workers with an umbrella in one hand and a briefcase in the other have written to me saying that they have only two hands and asking how they are supposed to get the ticket into the machine. I have letters from elderly people who are worried about the machines and from people who have paid for expensive season tickets which they put into the machine but do not get back. This is a thoroughly unpopular system which creates congestion and danger.
The machines do not even work. A fit youth can easily hop over them. In "World in Action", the reporter showed the immense congestion and how inconvenient the exit barriers are. He then said that he was travelling on a child's ticket and the machines did not spot it. They are not even effective. They should be withdrawn and no concourses should be closed off, especially after the King's Cross disaster. Hon. Members referred to the Paris metro, but the stations and the concourses there are usually much wider and do not have the safety problems that exist in stations in London. As has been said, the Paris metro operates a much cheaper fares policy so there is not such a great problem of fare evasion. We should be moving towards such a system. The real solution to fare evasion is not automatic barriers or penalty fares but more staff.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Hon. Members are pointing out quite rightly that the priorities being used at present accentuate the problem of fare evasion, but are disregarding the real problem within London Regional Transport. My hon. Friend is making a very good case. Does he agree that London's becoming the most congested and run-down transport system of all the capital cities in Europe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I am finding it difficult to relate some of his remarks to the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me that his remarks relate to the Bill and identify the particular clause in the Bill to which his remarks relate.

Mr. Cohen: I can give you that assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am told that my remarks relate to my interpretation of clause 2.
The problem is how to tackle fare evasion. London Regional Transport has proposed a package of automatic exit barriers and penalty fares. The alternative, which I think is much better, is a cheap fares policy and increased staffing to collect fares and protect the travelling public. Many women find travelling on the tube an absolute nightmare, a descent into hell. Certainly many women fear taking that risk.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend recall that during a recent debate on London Transport I mentioned the long delay in the repairs to the Pimlico escalator, extending over many months, since last May or June? It meant that many ladies and old and disabled people found negotiating that long stairway so difficult and demanding that they probably felt like evading the fare. Will my hon. Friend take note that when the matter was raised in the other place I am advised that Lord Brabazon immediately replied to the noble Lord who raised the issue? However, no Member of the House of Commons has had the courtesy of any comment from London Transport, although I understand that the escalator may well be in operation in another month or two.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman came in fairly recently, but the Chair allowed a fairly wide debate on the first Bill on condition that the debate on the second Bill would be related strictly to the Bill now before us. It would be an abuse of our procedures, and very unfair to hon. Members who have business after this, to have a wide debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will respond to what I have now said on a number of occasions.

Mr. Cohen: I shall do that, and therefore I shall not respond to the point about escalators, although my hon. Friend will know that at any particular time one in four escalators on the London Underground does not work. However, I shall not respond to that point because of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A better way forward would be increased staffing, a proper railways inspectorate, and for more people to be employed on the London Underground for fare collection, to look after the travelling public and to assist them, with courtesy. The way forward chosen by London Underground, London Regional Transport and the Government will lead to chaos. London will become known as a black spot among European capitals. That is what it has become under the Government. Penalty fares and blocking the way out of stations will simply make congestion and safety problems worse.
The barriers are not cheap—they cost well over £3 million. What a waste of money, especially when London Transport intends to hammer London ratepayers with a 50


per cent. increase in the levy order which the House will be discussing in the future. Therefore, they are a waste of money in addition to all the other problems.
The real way to stop fare evasion is a cheaper fares policy. I appreciate that that would create problems. There is already overcrowding and some might say that cheaper fares would make the overcrowding worse. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, that has to be tackled by capital investment. New lines and new rolling stock should be introduced. Some of the rolling stock being introduced now means that more people will have to stand up because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be taking any notice of the appeals I have made to him. He must restrict his remarks to the Bill and not widen the debate. I have told him on more than one occasion and I must repeat to him that there is other business after this. He can talk for as long as he likes provided he stays in order but at present he persists in being out of order. This is the last occasion on which I am prepared to appeal to the hon. Gentleman in that regard.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am addressing the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? If a check on fare evasion is to be carried out on the trains, which is what I understand the Bill provides, why is it not relevant for my hon. Friend to refer to the rolling stock—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I am sure that he will take notice of what I have said to him.

Mr. Cohen: I certainly will. I do not intend to evade the important issues and I do not want to filibuster. The points I want to make are too important for me to filibuster and concern the interests of the London travelling public. I am coming to the end of my remarks.
Instead of penalty fares and automatic barriers, which just make everything worse, we need a cheaper fares policy. We need more public investment and cheap, efficient and safe travel. We need a co-ordinated transport system that covers all modes of transport and helps ease the problems of overcrowding. We need a change of direction in investment with more money spent on the tube and less on the roads. We need democracy so that the people who run London Underground and London Regional Transport are subject to the democratic pressures of the travelling public and the people of London. If they were subject to that democratic pressure, I do not believe that they would introduce such penalty fares or the automatic ticket barriers. They would have to argue their case if they were electable. Democracy must be restored to our London transport system if we are to solve some of the problems.
Everyone who uses London Underground cares and worries about the safety implications. They do not want to travel in pig-sty or unsafe conditions; they want an efficient and proper system. They pay enough for it, so they deserve it. They care passionately about having a good London transport system. It is the Government who

do not care and show that they do not care. They have a contempt for the travelling public for which they should be exposed.

Dr. John Marek: I shall be brief, because some of my points have already been made. I agree with the points made by hon. Members about what is wrong with London Regional Transport. It is, however, necessary to make some points as the two Bills are separate.
I admit that in relation to the previous Bill efforts were made to consult British Rail unions, and I understand that consultations are continuing. However, I am not sure that there have been any consultations with the unions about this Bill. If there were any consultations they were perfunctory. It is a pity that, whichever board or company is concerned, it does not gain the support of its employees in the first place. If there were a spirit of consensus, I am sure that many of our debates would be much shorter.
I know that many London Regional Transport employees are extremely worried about the provisions in this Bill. They do not appear to be consulted by London Regional Transport, London Underground Ltd. or by London Buses. As we are all in favour of cutting the number of fare evasions, it is a great pity that unions are not taken into partnership with the board—in this case London Regional Transport—so that a mutually agreed system can be put forward for the House to consider.
The number of assaults on staff on the London Underground in 1983 was 300; in 1984, 286; in 1985, 364; in 1986, 378; and in 1987, 409. I shall not go into why there is an increase in the number of assaults on staff, but I merely say that it is because of the society in which we live and those who are responsible for that society. I am sceptical that one or two guards, conductors or ticket inspectors will be able to deal with the average late night incident on the Underground when trying to exact a £10 penalty fare from a passenger. As we know, some passengers will have had more drink than is good for them, others will be argumentative and others will respond with violence at the drop of a hat. We know only too well what happens day in and day out on the London Underground. I do not believe that it is good enough that civilians or employees should have to exact the £10 penalty fare from people at the risk of physical harm.
If, of course, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will say that there would be British Transport police on every train or accompanying every penalty fare collector, I may modify my views. It is a sad historical fact that the number of London Underground police has been dropping, until recently, for reasons completely extraneous to London Regional Transport. If more police were employed, the public and employees would be more confident that violence would not occur. I fear, however, that such violence will increase as a result of the Bill.
I shall not dwell on the subject of barriers, which has been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), but I am concerned about the servicing of the fare machines. I am not confident in LRT's ability to operate machines that do not break down and that will always give change. As a result of poor servicing I fear that such machines will soon run out of change and will demand exact fare money only. If one is at a tube


station where the machines are either broken or taking exact fare only, I have no confidence that the booking office will be open. If it is, there is bound to be a queue.
The public do not want the guarantee that for 80 per cent. of the time all stations will be functioning from 5.30 am until 12.30 at night. The public want to know that for 98 per cent. of the time all stations will be functioning. I do not believe that that is sufficient and I believe that that guarantee should stand for 99·9 per cent. of the time.
There are about four fare machines at Westminster and LRT should be able to guarantee within 0·01 per cent. that at least one of those machines will work all the time. I do not believe that such a gurarantee can be given. I do not believe that LRT has the will to fulfil that commitment. In common with British Rail, LRT is trying to get machines to take the place of people. That will not work. Has the board of LRT estimated how much it would cost to employ a couple of people at every underground station? There are 200 or more stations. It is easy to calculate how much it would cost to have three shifts of two staff at each station—1,200 staff would cost between £10 million and £12 million. The revenue lost as a result of evasion is put at £26 million and I would not be surprised if the employment of additional staff resulted in a £12 million reduction, if not more, in the cost of evasion. We should not give the Bill a Second Reading unless some estimate has been made of the cost and implications of such additional employment.
If extra staff were employed not only would fare evasion be reduced, but violence and vandalism. We would also have cleaner stations and help could be given to mothers and children. It seems that LRT is not worried about any of those extra benefits; all that it is concerned about is making people unemployed and putting machines in their place. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will deal with that later.
The Bill is not written in the same style as the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill and I believe that it is a little more authoritarian. Clause 5(1) on penalty fares on trains says:
Subject to subsection (2) below, if a person travelling on a train service fails to produce a fare ticket or a general travel authority on being required to do so by an authorised person, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare if required to do so by an authorised person.
Both Bills contain similar provisions. Clause 5 (2)(a) says:
A person (other than one falling within paragraph (b) below) shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare under this section if at the time when and the station where he started to travel on the train service there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey.
The clause specifically says that there must be facilities for the sale of the necessary ticket. That means that if such facilities exist the person travelling will be deemed to be in default and liable for the penalty fare even if there is a mile-long queue outside the booking office with many people waiting to buy tickets to other destinations. The Bill does not say that such a queue can be an exception. Clause 5(2)(b) gives an exception because it talks about a person transferring to a service.
Clause 5(2)(c)(i) says that the penalty fare is not payable if
there was displayed a notice (however expressed) indicating that it was permissible for passengers beginning a journey at that station.

Clause 5(2)(c)(ii) says that a person would not have to pay the penalty fare if
an authorised person in uniform gave permission to the same effect.
In terms of legalities I am a layman, and on a layman's reading of the Bill it seems that it will make the innocent person guilty and put him into a worse position in terms of proving his innocence. I gave a specific example of a booking point that is open and has a long queue. As far as I can see from the Bill, a passenger will be liable for the penalty fare unless he waits for a long time in the ticket queue.
The Bill does not deserve a Second Reading. It is worse than the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill that we discussed earlier, and that is because of the questions that it raises about assault and civil liberties, and because the management of London Regional Transport seems to have made no effort to talk to the unions and employees concerned. I hope that the Bill will be roundly defeated.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have some specific and short questions for the Minister. First, what is the position on deferred fare authorities? Will he tell us whether they are intended for use only on the Underground system when they have been issued at a British Rail station or is it intended to make them available at all London Underground stations where for some reason machines are not working?
How will the ticket barriers work? Perhaps the Minister could give some guidance about how to proceed through a barrier when one is pushing a pram. I am told that it is extremely difficult to get both the pram and the adult pushing or pulling it through the barrier without either the pram or the adult being snapped at by the closing gates. What happens if a passenger inserts a ticket and the green light comes on, indicating that for some reason or other the ticket is not accepted, especially when many people standing behind are impatient to get out of the station?
The other day I saw a person put in a ticket. The green light came on but before the passenger could read the message he was pushed forward by the person behind him who put in his ticket and the two people came out through the gate. I do not know whether that happened because the gate was not functioning properly or whether it was supposed to happen, but it is fairly frightening when one is at the front of the queue with many people behind and for some reason a perfectly valid ticket is thrown out by the machine.
Will the Minister tell us what is to happen to the monthly, weekly and even daily tickets which are made of fairly flimsy material? They are placed in a plastic wallet and have to be shown on the way out of the station. That suggests that the material of which they will be made will have to be one that the machine will be able to read easily after repeated use.
We hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will be able to reassure us on these points. He should try to ensure that, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, it spends as long as possible in Committee. I am certain that the mood of people in London and of hon. Members is that the Bill should not become law until the new ticketing system on London Underground has worked out all its teething troubles, if that is possible. It would be


criminal for the House to give London Regional Transport the authority to carry out a penalty fare system when it cannot operate efficiently the system of collecting fares.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have a number of specific questions about compulsory ticket areas. These are defined in clause 2, which says:
A 'compulsory ticket area' means that part of a station which, under the byelaws of the person providing a train service to which this Act applies, passengers are not permitted to enter without a fare ticket, general travel authority or platform ticket".
What instructions will be given to staff regarding compulsory ticket areas in an emergency? Ticket inspection staff will be operating in these areas, and they will be trying to check on people going into them. When there is an emergency, they will have to direct people through those areas, so the compulsory ticket area will have to be waived. What sort of instructions is LRT giving about what should happen in an emergency? We do not want compulsory ticket areas in which staff are operating being used as a barrier to people moving. In an emergency, such areas must merge in with the thoroughfares.
My hon. Friends have mentioned ticket barriers for leaving stations and the difficulties of inserting tickets and getting the gates to open. What pressure is required to use those barriers in emergencies? I am staggered that these automatic ticket barriers are being installed so soon after the dreadful King's Cross fire. I know that questions have been raised time and again about installing such ticket barriers when the lessons of the King's Cross fire show that there has to be rapid escape from a fire to get away from what is, in effect, the top of a chimney. What sort of pressure is involved? Could, for example, a slightly built woman move the barriers to one side, bearing in mind that she might have a couple of toddlers with her? If there is smoke, panic and fumes, could she move the barrier to one side, as LRT claims?

Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. We have had an interesting debate and some important points have been made. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was not the only person to mention employment. We must be concerned about that important issue. If people have given their life to an industry, it would be wrong to cast them aside without looking after them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his journey from East Ham this morning, and the difficulty that he had because of the long queue of people waiting for tickets. One of the important aspects of the Bill is that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before he agrees to the implementation of the scheme that there will be adequate facilities for automatic ticket dispensing machines to be available. At about the same time as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was dodging a queue and boarding a train without a ticket, which he admitted, I was feeding my money into an efficient machine at Ilford station, which dispensed a ticket without any problem. There were more ticket machines than people who wanted to use them. There was a hiccup on the network line as some of the overhead cables had malfunctioned at Bethnal Green, but the Underground was able to relieve the pressure from Stratford and the system worked efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Tony Banks: I ask the hon. Gentleman to complete the story about my travel on the Underground this morning. I paid when I reached Westminster, and I want that to be on record.

Mr. Thorne: I would not dream of suggesting that any hon. Member did not pay the full fare on reaching his destination. That goes without saying. I accept that there must be a sufficient number of adequate ticket machines installed at East Ham station before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be satisfied that he can allow their introduction.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the reduction of staffing at stations and suggested that it would amount to one sixth of the Underground staff. I hope that one of the main advantages of such a scheme will be to enable the system to redeploy staff.
Several hon. Members have mentioned their concern about safety on the Underground system. As recent events have shown, the public require more British Transport police to be present within the system. Undertakings have been given that over the next 12 months additional personnel will he deployed. I am sure that everyone will agree that with the advantages of new technology we should take the opportunity that is presented to us and redeploy staff where they are most needed.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West and others talked about the breakdown of ticket barriers and the need for comfort and safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the ticket barriers will be of an adequate standard and will not break down, thus causing a gross inconvenience to passengers. Considerable experience with the machines has already been gained in other parts of the world. We can learn from the experience of others, and I trust that we shall have as reliable a system in Britain as they have in Hong Kong and various other countries, where it works extremely efficiently.
I agree that special attention must be given to comfort and safety. It must be understood that the ticket-issuing clerk and the ticket collector will occupy important positions and will both be on duty at all times when the stations are open. They will have access to a button to neutralise the automatic barriers and allow a free flow. That important safety measure will be required.

Mr. Cohen: I have received much correspondence about ticket barriers, and a section of it relates to an explosion—perhaps a bomb—in the Underground system. If the staff could not press the so-called magic button, the gates would remain locked. Is that a possibility?

Mr. Thorne: Anything is possible, but I do not think that that is likely to happen. There are special provisions that we must examine for smoke detection, for example. If any smoke is generated from an explosion, it would be noticed. The staff who would be on duty at all times would be present to take care of those situations. I am confident that the staff that we expect to be employed on the Underground will be of such a standard that they will be able to cope with those eventualities.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was particularly concerned about employment. I hope that his fears are unfounded and that we will be able to redeploy staff in the system more effectively and efficiently. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) criticised the Minister for the shortness of his statement. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Leyton was in


the Chamber when the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill was debated, but my hon. Friend the Minister gave a longer explanation then. He also explained that he was not the promoter of this Bill and was adopting a neutral position. He was not replying to the debate. That is my job, with the permission of the House.
The danger to staff when collecting penalty fares is a very important and worrying point. I hope that more transport police will be involved and that it will be possible to protect staff who might be in danger. We must bear in mind that there is an undertaking that staff will at least work in pairs. Undoubtedly late at night, after drinking hours, we should expect them to work in threes and fours. In the very near future, possibly before this scheme is implemented, we hope that it will be possible to introduce radios on the system that can work underground. Therefore, a call could be made requesting police to be available at the next station, should that need arise. Staff safety is paramount and it would be wrong to try to introduce a system which put the staff at risk. That would not work.
The hon. Member for Leyton also referred to exits. Where automatic barriers are neutralised to allow free passage, it is possible for between 50 and 60 passengers a minute to pass through each barrier. We must remember that the space allocated for exiting is greater with automatic barriers than with manned. The constriction is greater with manned barriers than with a number of exit points. It should be possible to exit much quicker where automatic barriers are in position.
The hon. Member for Leyton also said that automatic barriers were unpopular. I hope that, like many things, they will become more popular as people become more familiar with them. He also asked about someone using a child's ticket. When a child's ticket is inserted in the machine, it is supposed to switch on a light to show that a child is passing through. One of the duties of the ticket collector is to ensure that the light does not come on when adults are passing through. His attention may have been distracted at that moment, but that is the intention.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned the absence of union consultations. Such consultations have taken place at a very basic level. Now that the process has been started, we hope that it will develop during the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and once it goes into Committee I hope that it will be possible to deal with some of the union fears in more detail and more positively. We should get these matters into perspective. If the proposals had been introduced a year or two ago, they would have been out of date now and we would have had to go through the whole matter again. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Wrexham on that point.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of assaults on staff by passengers who have been drinking, which I have covered, and expressed concern about mechanical breakdowns. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is an effective system for dealing with malfunctioning apparatus. I understand that a control panel will indicate which apparatus is malfunctioning, so that the area supervisor will be able immediately to know if an unacceptable number of machines are faulty and when to send help.

Dr. Marek: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will be an area supervisor at every London Underground station? I cannot see that happening.

Mr. Thorne: My understanding is that the machinery at a number of stations will be monitored at one particular location. Signals will be sent from the barriers at each station to a central control point. There will not be a supervisor or mechanics at every station, but if an unacceptable number of machines at any one station malfunction, assistance will be sent as soon as possible.
If long queues form, the staff on duty must indicate that there is an emergency and that passengers will be allowed through. The inspecting staff will be given notice that a number of ticket-dispensing machines have broken down. That will be part of the human input at the station concerned—it will be the responsibility of the staff there to take that decision. Provided a sufficient number of machines are working, such a thing should rarely, if ever, happen.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned inoperative machinery and I have answered that point. Passengers pushing prams will be able to pass through the manned barrier.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will always be an alternative to using the mechanical ticket barriers?

Mr. Thorne: The intention is that there will always be that option available.
I suppose that two people could pass through the barrier together, but, as the machinery becomes more sophisticated, perhaps that abuse will be defeated. Season tickets, like many other items, can be magnetically read. That can help prevent them from becoming tatty, in the same way that a credit card does not become tatty. I accept that the Bill's Committee stage will be important. All the questions that have been raised must be sorted out then.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked what instructions will be given to staff regarding compulsory exits in ticket areas in an emergency. In most cases, two points will be manned by staff, who will have the ability to neutralise the automatic barriers to permit free exit. The manned barrier will also be in operation, but the intention is that passengers, other than those pushing prams or in invalid chairs, will pass quickly through the opened mechanical barriers.
I hope that those replies deal with all the points that have been raised, and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, so that its provisions may be further clarified in Committee.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 37.

Division No. 77]
[11.29pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom(Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Durant, Tony






Fallon, Michael
Mills, Iain


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Needham, Richard


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gill, Christopher
Portillo, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Ground, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harris, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Summerson, Hugo


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Irvine, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Jack, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Knapman, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Wallace, James


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Maclean, David



McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mans, Keith
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Miller, Sir Hal
Mr. Roger King.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Marek, Dr John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp;R'dish)
Meale, Alan


Buckley, George J.
Michael, Alun


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clay, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Prescott, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ruddock, Joan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Galbraith, Sam
Snape, Peter


Graham, Thomas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Tony Banks and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Martin Redmond.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Adoption Allowance Schemes

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That the draft Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.
I hope that it will be convenient for the House to take both orders together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): So be it.

Mr. Freeman: The orders, the Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989 and the Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989, have the effect of repealing section 57(7) of the Adoption Act 1976 and section 51(8) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Without the repeal of these sections there will be no provision for further approval of allowance schemes to adopters after 14 February.
The provision we are considering has its origin in a recommendation in 1972 of the departmental committee on the adoption of children—the Houghton committee. In its report the committee addressed the case for paying allowances to adopters in certain circumstances: circumstances in which adoption had been identified as the best future for a child, and a suitable family had been found, but in which there was a financial obstacle to the adoption. The aim would be to secure adoption for children who could not otherwise readily be adopted and who could face a childhood spent in care without a family of their own. The committee recommended that a small number of pilot schemes should be authorised as a trial of this new idea.
The proposal was taken up in section 32 of the Children Act 1975, now consolidated as section 57 of the Adoption Act 1976 and section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. During the passage of the Bill a number of reservations and cautions were voiced about the wisdom of the measure—natural and thoughtful reservations, to which I shall turn briefly in a moment. Accordingly, the Houghton committee's recommendation of an experimental period was adopted by Parliament. Adoption agencies were given the opportunity to seek the approval of the Secretaries of State to schemes for payment of allowances for a period of seven years from implementation of the provision. The provision would come to an end automatically after seven years unless both Houses agreed to its continuation, and the Secretaries of State were required to publish before that date a report on the operation of the schemes.
The provision duly came into force, in England and Wales and in Scotland, in February 1982. Adoption agencies began to put together and submit for approval schemes drawn up according to guidelines issued by the Department. These agencies were for the most part local authorities, although two voluntary approved adoption societies in England now have schemes. It became clear over the following few years that the experiment was taking a somewhat different turn from—

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend mentioned that a few local authorities did not have such schemes. It is shameful that they should not. Can he identify them?

Mr. Freeman: Only four authorities in England do not have such schemes. That means that about 104 do, which shows that there is broad acceptance of the scheme.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Would the Minister be prepared to name the four authorities that do not have such a scheme?

Mr. Freeman: I shall draw the point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will answer it later.
It became clear over the next few years that the experiment was taking a somewhat different turn from that expected. The interest and enthusiasm of local authorities far exceeded expectations, and many more schemes were submitted than the few envisaged by the Houghton committee. In England, indeed, the rapid flow of applications caused some strain on the resources of the Department of Health. However, we decided that this high level of interest was to be welcomed, with its potential benefit to children in need of adoptive families. Now, after seven years, there is universal coverage in Scotland and in Wales, where all local authorities have a scheme, and, as I have already indicated, in England 98 authorities and two voluntary societies have approved schemes, with a further six local authority schemes going through the approval process. That makes a total of 104 authorities either with schemes or going through the approval process.
Research projects were put in hand to investigate and report on the operation of these schemes—in Scotland by the social administration department of Edinburgh university, and in England and Wales by the National Children's Bureau. The Secretaries of State have published the reports, as they were required to do. Copies are in the Library, and I commend these excellent and valuable reports to hon. Members.
We have naturally been influenced by the reports in deciding to seek the House's agreement to the orders before us, and I shall touch briefly on one or two of the findings. We were, of course, particularly looking to the reports, first, to find out whether allowances had succeeded in their objective of enabling agencies to secure adoption for children who could not otherwise be adopted, however much they might need an adoptive family, and, secondly, to shed light on the concerns which were in the minds of some in the House when the experiment was originally agreed.
There is no doubt about the answer to the first question. The hope was that adoption allowances would benefit two groups of children in particular: children who were happily placed, in long-term placements in foster families, but whose foster parents could not afford to forgo the whole of the boarding-out allowance; and children with special needs involving a level of expenditure beyond the power of adopters to meet—children with mental and physical and emotional handicaps, older children needing help with behavioural difficulties, and groups of brothers and sisters who must remain together as a family. The two groups do, of course, overlap.
We now know from the research reports that in Scotland, up to the end of 1986, more than 500 children were placed with allowances. In England and Wales there were nearly 1,000 such placements by the end of 1986. At this point the researchers from the National Children's Bureau thought that numbers would slow down after

clearance of the backlog of cases which were awaiting introduction of schemes. However, this has not proved to be the case. With more schemes in England continuing to come into operation, the arrangements have rather gathered momentum, so that the bureau now estimates that the number of agreed allowances in England and Wales has doubled in the past two years and has now passed the 2,000 mark. This is a trend which we can hope to see continue as more authorities begin to operate and appreciate the advantages of schemes.
In all the countries, the majority of adopters were foster parents. Up to the end of 1986, in Scotland nearly one half, and in England nearly one third, of children were adopted with one or more brothers and sisters. In Scotland, nearly one quarter, and in England and Wales nearly one half, of the children had special needs, in the sense of physical, mental or emotional handicaps or behavioural difficulties. Some were severely handicapped, with multiple handicaps.
The reports demonstrate that people adopting with allowances were people in modest circumstances, with many on low incomes. The allowances themselves were not extravagant. In England the average allowance is about £30 a week. Nor has adoption with allowances become the norm. The majority of adopters are still able to adopt without an allowance. All schemes have criteria for allowances, so that allowances are restricted to circumstances of special need.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: The Minister says that the majority of people do not have an allowance. Does he have an exact figure?

Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly seek advice on that point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
I believe we can now be satisfied that where children cannot be cared for by their own families, adoption allowances have their place, and a place of proven value, in the range of options open to agencies seeking to provide the happiest, most secure and best future for such children. I must stress that there is no intention to remove children from natural parents where there is economic difficulty or hardship and to subsidise them elsewhere. Children are placed for adoption using non-financial criteria, as I know that many hon. Members who take an interest in this subject realise.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend mentioned the figure of £30 a week as the average adoption allowance. Would he like to compare that with the cost of keeping a child in residential care?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that the average costs of keeping children in residential care are greater, but I find that comparison invidious. We are concerned here with the welfare of children. Although I take the sense of my hon. Friend's question, I would not like to place too great an emphasis on the financial benefits. What really counts is what is best for the children. If the opportunity of adoption with this modest financial inducement means that they can come out of residential care, or if they are with foster parents and that can be made permanent through adoption, that is the main criterion.
I should like to add a final point in relation to the framework within which agencies pay allowances. In Scotland, I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister


that adoption allowance schemes have been introduced without particular difficulty and have worked smoothly. It is not intended, therefore, that there should be any change in the arrangements for schemes set out in section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act.
In England and Wales, the position is different. The diversity of schemes led to much discussion between the Department and local authorities and at times there have been long intervals between application and approval. Many authorities are now finding, with the benefit of experience, that they wish to make changes in their schemes, and such changes require further approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The number and variety of schemes have provided rich feedback during the experimental period, but we see a need now to look for a less cumbersome and potentially frustrating system which requires less intervention from the central Departments.
Accordingly, we shall introduce as an amendment to the Children Bill, which is now proceeding through another place, a regulation making power so that agencies will be able to determine and pay allowances within the framework of regulations instead of within the framework of an approved scheme. It is our intention that regulations should draw on the experience of schemes and, like schemes, give agencies sufficient flexibility to respond to a diversity of circumstances. Until a regulation-making power is available and regulations made, the order will ensure that schemes continue in operation. I am talking about a prospective amendment so that, in future, the operation of these schemes becomes a little easier to adminster. Those few authorities that are still considering whether to put in a scheme can still do so. I ask the House to approve the orders.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Minister for the lucid way in which he introduced the orders. We welcome the orders and the opportunity to discuss them.
The House, local authorities and the various agencies to which the Minister referred will feel that the experiment has been successful. It is right to renew the orders. As the Minister said, the allowance to adopt owes its origins to the Houghton report. Much of the controversy to which the report gave rise has dissolved in the light of experience. There can be no greater tribute or compliment to the Houghton committee's recommendations than the success of these schemes.
Allowances are made when adoption is the right course for the child, when a suitable adoptive family has been found, but there is some financial obstacle. In other words, the idea is to secure suitable adoption for children who would not readily be adopted if allowances could not be made.
The Minister has made it clear that the Government have performed their statutory duty by referring the National Childrens Bureau Lambert-Seglow report to the Department of Health and the Welsh Office, which enthusiastically endorsed it, and the Hill-Triseliotis report for the Scottish Office, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) would like to refer. They certainly said that the scheme should be retained. As the Minister said, the order was influenced by section 32 of the Children Act 1975. That had a controversial baptism. I understand that in

Committee the Chairman had to use his casting vote. I doubt whether the same circumstances would arise were the same proposition put today.
According to the NCB report:
Children with 'special needs' are being adopted and some who, hitherto, might have spent all their lives in institutional care now experience family life.
That can only be profoundly welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government consider that specific aspect of the orders as being consistent with a strategy for community care. Certainly Sir Roy Griffiths felt that community care embraces the rights of children with learning difficulties and their carers and adopters.
The point has been made that £30 a week in modern times does not offer all that much, given the expenses that parents have, so if the orders are considered as part of a strategy to embrace community care in the widest possible sense, we certainly welcome them.
The Minister mentioned the Children Bill. We are paying a great deal of attention to its progress in another place and we look forward to debating it in the House. The Minister said that an amendment will be tabled. When we debate the Children Bill, obviously we shall give the matter the utmost consideration and consult extremely closely with the voluntary bodies and the individuals mostly concerned with that amendment and with those sections of the Bill.
According to the NCB report, unemployment affected almost one in every five allowance families, and many others were subject to job or wage insecurity. Clearly, in the past, low income has been a stumbling block to adoption and the experiment challenged what amounted to an obstruction in earlier days.
The report to the Department of Health and the Welsh Office says on page 94 that provision is "under-used". Is that the case, and in view of the excellence of the reports and the welcome that they have received, what action do the Government intend to take to ensure that the provisions are fully used? The success of the scheme invites that suggestion.
Do payments continue when families move to other areas or to other local authorities? Are the Minister and the Government satisfied with existing arrangements?
I have mentioned, as has the Minister and as will my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the two reports before the House. I should like briefly to refer to the major points that emerge from those reports. The report to the Department of Health and the Welsh Office states:
Our comparative study of adoptions with and without allowances showed that a significantly higher proportion of `special needs' children were adopted with the assistance of an allowance, especially those with multiple difficulties. Other children, who did not have these specific needs, were school-age or were placed with siblings and they, too, were likely to be costly for the families to look after.
Elsewhere in the same report we read:
Even though the adoption allowances received by these families were often paid at lower rates than the amounts calculated by NFCA relating to average family expenditure for children, they enabled these families to proceed with adoption. Our interviews with several families in this position indicated the sense of relief and gratitude generated by this additional security, and also pleasure at the recognition of their suitability to parent these children.
That is an impressive comment.
The report to the Scottish Office states:


Let us briefly recap the main characteristics of those granted an adoption allowance. The majority of the children were aged over 5—indeed about half were aged over 10. Those who were younger mostly had some kind of handicap, of which Down's Syndrome was by far the most common. About 4 in 5 of all the children were to be adopted by their foster parents. Many had in fact, lived with the same family for several years, often since infancy.
The same report observed:
Only a few of the families had above average incomes. The foster parent adopters included higher than usual proportions who were aged over 40, already had children of their own (some already grown up) and were working class. By and large they were stable, caring people who life-style was home-centred.
That is a tremendous tribute to the experiment but, more than that, it is a tremendous tribute to the adopters who have taken on a difficult role which calls for great dedication.
On behalf of my hon. Friends, I welcome the orders in a spirit of recognising that there is a need for care, concern and commitment towards those who do so much for children who started out with a considerable disadvantage. However, as a society, we recognise that the adopters are doing their best to assist those with that disadvantage.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing these welcome measures which take the place of the original measures introduced seven years ago as an experiment following the casting vote of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Children Bill in 1975. It is an experiment that has resulted in great benefit to over 2,000 children. As my hon. Friend said, it is the needs of the children that we must keep in the front of our minds.
The orders provide excellent news for thousands of children currently in care. I am uncertain of the number of children who are eligible for adoption, but I have seen figures suggesting that up to 3,000 severely handicapped children in residential care are eligible for adoption. These measures are a green light for families who have been thinking of adopting but have been uncertain about the arrangements. They can now go ahead with full security.
The old measures run out on St. Valentine's day and I ask the Government to put their heart on their sleeve and introduce such measures throughout the country. I hope that the four authorities that do not yet have schemes in place will introduce them and that the regulations to be introduced in the Children Bill will be sufficiently standardised for the Government to be able to advertise and promote the schemes widely. Next week ITV is running a series of programmes on families for children. I hope that the Government will support that and run advertisements.
The debate is about love. That is not a word we hear much in other debates in the Chamber. Financially, the measures will benefit the Government but it is the love for the children which causes parents to adopt children who, in the majority of cases, they have been fostering for some years. I am a parent who has been through that experience. We fostered our child for three years before we were able to complete all the legal formalities for adoption. I am sure that parents who have been wanting to adopt and who have been hesitating because of lack of certainty about the financial arrangements will welcome all the new measures.
There is a history of difficulty with some councils, and I hope that we can overcome any remaining objections there. The excellent book by Catherine Macaskil, published by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, entitled "Against the Odds" summed up some of the difficulties that parents can have when they wish to adopt severely handicapped children. However, I hope and believe that that is becoming a thing of the past. I commend the work done by Bolton council, which has been prominent in helping families in deciding to adopt children from the Elizabeth Ashmore home for severely handicapped children. There have been wonderful examples of children adopted in that way.
Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that parents who adopt children will be thinking not only of their childhood, but of what happens to them when they are older. I believe that the parents of natural children and those of adopted children will be asking what the provisions are for children when they reach the age of 19. I am not sure whether any of the existing adoption schemes allow for payments to continue up to the age of 19 or beyond, but, obviously, that is when parents have the greatest anxieties and when respite care schemes are of the greatest help in keeping children with their families. I hope that there will be an opportunity for us to debate care in the community on another occasion, because that will be an additional factor in helping families to take the benefits from these proposed measures.
I am not sure whether I will have the opportunity of being a Member of the Committee discussing the Children Bill—I would certainly like to be considered if I am not tied up on another Bill—when, no doubt, we shall be able to see more of the proposed regulations.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing forward these measures. We look forward to their being implemented. We look forward to seeing St. Valentine's day pass by as the end of the experiment, with, as I have said, the Government wearing their heart on their sleeve in the future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, am happy to support the orders. I have read the relevant sections of the reports that the respective Secretaries of State were required by statute to commission. If I draw a little more on the report commissioned by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I mean no disrespect to the authors of the report commissioned for England and Wales. I do so merely for the sake of convenience and, at this hour of the night, brevity. One understands, as the Minister has confirmed, that both reports reach broadly similar conclusions.
No discussion of adoption should ever begin without a generous recognition of those who are willing to take into their homes the children of others—children who, by cruel chance, are unable to experience the warmth and care of being brought up in their own families by their natural parents. In my professional life as a practising advocate, I have seen many cases where ordinary people, with no particular pretension to sainthood, with open hearts and much practical common sense, have given a warm and loving home to children who would otherwise have lived in institutions all their lives. Those were ordinary people giving ordinary children ordinary lives, and they would not have had it described in any other way.
It is perhaps easy now to understand why the Houghton committee's recommendations were received without universal approval, not only, I suppose, because of the existence of a general principle of law that banned the making of such payments—in Scotland at least—but because an uncritical response to those proposals could lead one to a kind of visceral reaction that such payments were intrinsically repugnant. I believe that the wisdom lay in the legislation allowing for a trial period and even further in the fact that, before the legislation could be reconsidered—as it is, in effect, being reconsidered—there was required to be a report, relying not upon instinct, but upon evidence.
I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily with extensive quotation from the report commissioned by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it contains a number of passages that repay careful reading. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made certain references to it, but I want to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 3.5 which states:
What is more satisfying is that many families who start as temporary carers become attached to their respective children and eventually prefer to adopt them rather than see them experiencing continued moves and disruptions in their lives. The allowance is vital to many of these families if they arc to continue providing the children with an accustomed and acceptable standard of living.
Paragraph 3.8 is most revealing as the authors write:
As an example, the media who tried to sensationalise the introduction of allowances as an opportunity to profit gave a reasoned response following the publication of our first report showing the benefits of allowances to children.
That betokens a substantial sea change in public attitude. Paragraph 4.3 states:
Some adopters were adding two, three or even more children to their families, which is a major undertaking from any point of view. Some children were enabled by allowances to move out of residential care and join a family on a permanent basis, including some children with extremely limited mental and physical capacities who were leaving hospital to receive individual care and attention.
It is probably impossible for us to calculate the improvement in the quality of the lives of such children who had the good fortune to find themselves treated in that way.
Paragraph 4.6 states:
Special needs children make the kind of demands which stretch families' coping abilities requiring a range of resources to manage with the need for extra clothes and footwear, holidays, respite care"—
that important element is recognised much more now than it has been for a long time—
visits to specialist services etc. In this respect the allowance was vital for the maintenance and stability of the placement, which was corroborated by the research.
The report does not contain instinctive reactions, but conclusions based upon observation and evidence. The report gives the most eloquent justification for the decision to set up the experiment, especially as we have been told that certain parts of its progress were furthered only by the casting vote of the Committee Chairman. Tonight we should give thanks for the foresight of the Chairman who was prepared to exercise his casting vote when the media reaction was far from universally favourable.
The orders are plainly necessary to continue and maintain a system that has served well the children—not the House—who are their subject. The essence of the law of adoption, north and south of the border, is that the interests of the child should be paramount.
The orders are necessary to ensure that the interests of many children who are either already or may become the subject of adoption will remain paramount and that such children will be given the opportunity that otherwise they might find denied to them. If that happened they would he put in a different position from others and, through no fault of their own, that would necessarily attend their lives. For that reason I and, I have no doubt, the entire House will be happy to support the orders.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I give a warm welcome to the orders. It is particularly important that the legislation has not only been successful, but has been seen to be so, and seen to be fair. That is important when one considers the public attitude to the laws passed by this establishment.
On behalf of the Nationalists in the House, I accept and welcome the orders and the philosophy behind them, that the care and love of the child is at the heart of the matter. We cannot buy love and care for the children in our society, but through the orders we can certainly allow love and care to flourish in homes where not too much financial strain is placed on the people who adopt children.
Hon. Members have spoken about children with special needs. I have a social work background and am conscious of the great efforts that have been made by Scottish local authorities to ensure that such children are fostered and adopted. We tend to think of children with physical and mental handicaps, but there is a new area of concern in Scotland and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. I am speaking about the additional problem of youngsters with AIDS, or who are affected by the HIV syndrome. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the legislation could include positive discrimination in favour of families who are prepared to take on what is seen as a major risk to all other children in the family and to neighbours and others? We must address that problem because Scotland is facing an AIDS crisis.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that adoption allowances will net in any way affect the payment of child benefits. Many hon. Members, including the few who have remained to participate in the debate, are worried about the Government's decision to freeze child benefits. We need an assurance that the payment of adoption allowances will not be set against child benefit. It is important for families to know that they will not be penalised as a result of the continuation of the orders.
I have already had correspondence with the Minister on my final matter, which is about the definition of adoptive and natural parents. I had a case in my constituency of a natural mother, a widow, who remarried. Her new husband decided to adopt the children of her previous marriage but in the process of registration the natural mother was recorded as being the adoptive mother. She had great difficulty in ensuring that she continued to be recognised as the natural parent of her children. The: original birth certificates were withheld from her, although photocopies can be made available.
In the process of adoption, I should like to see a recognition of the natural parent. I hope that the Minister will look at that. Perhaps it is not directly relevant to the orders, but in our society divorce is a regular occurrence and it is necessary to define natural and adoptive parents.
Would the natural mother that I have mentioned be eligible for an adoption allowance or would that be denied to her because she is the natural parent?

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I trust that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have noticed our co-operation in merging the two orders. I hope that no hon. Member takes that as a weakening of our commitment to devolution. Judging from the speeches in the debate, one would think that Scottish Members had taken over. We have had contributions from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), from my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and the Minister, who is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is to reply. We are grateful for, and much appreciative of, the contribution made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who speaks with such experience and feeling on this matter.
As every hon. Member has said, we welcome these orders. The scheme has worked smoothly, particularly in Scotland. It was started as an experiment, for good and sound reasons. There were fears that paying for adoption would lead to problems, but those fears have proved to be without foundation. I pay tribute to the Chairman whose casting vote ensured that the Committee recommended this scheme. It has worked well, and has been to the benefit of children, which is what it is all about.
I have certain questions for the Minister, which I make not in a carping, but in an open and constructive manner because this matter should not divide the House. These questions will relate to Scotland, where my responsibility lies, but will, I trust, be relevant to the rest of the United Kingdom. Can we introduce a single national scheme? As the Minister knows, there are variations within Scotland, and a national scheme would be more simple, and would avoid competition. Some children would qualify for an adoption allowance in one area, but not in another. Will the Minister examine this point in detail?
Another problem with the variations is that the allowance is different in different areas. In Grampian, the value of the allowance is twice the value of that in Dumfries and Galloway, which is an anomaly that we should at least be examining, to avoid what can be construed as competition, and to make the whole scheme more simple.
Will the Minister also look at the criteria for inclusion in the scheme? As we know, there are many reasons for inclusion—mostly physical and mental handicap. One that is not included, although it can be on top of a physical and mental handicap, is simple emotional and behavioural difficulties. Some children have these alone, and it is doubtful whether they are included in the scheme. These children can be quite difficult to manage and to foster. Will the Minister consider widening the scheme to include these children, and will he also consider the actual, rather than the potential, difficulty in placing? The two do not necessarily go together.
Will the Minister also look at the matter of lump sum payments, referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East? These are an important part of respite

care, as they are an important part of any care, but they cost money, so it is important that lump sums are available. I understand the argument against such payments, but in respite care or when initial finance is needed to set up an adoption, they are particularly important. Other areas such as tuition are also important, and I reiterate the questions raised by the hon. and learned Member.
Will the Minister abolish the limit on the number of allowances? I understand why that was instituted—so that there would not be too many allowances. They were curtailed, not because of finance but to ensure that the scheme was not abused. With one exception, the limit of allowances has not been reached, so it would be appropriate to abolish them.
It would be helpful also if the Minister were to clarify the way in which different regions take into account the mobility and attendance allowances when considering the value of the adoption allowance. That could be done by the issuing of guidelines. A national scheme would avoid discrepancies between the various adopting authorities.
I trust that the Minister will accept that the issues which I have raised are constructive. The Opposition are seeking to improve the scheme, and we have no wish to be carping. We welcome unreservedly the orders that the Government have placed before us and we shall give them our wholehearted support.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): This has been a useful debate and I welcome the support from both sides of the House that has been forthcoming this evening. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was especially interesting. His direct personal knowledge and experience was valuable. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Bearsden and Strathkelvin (Mr. Galbraith) gave such a positive welcome to the purpose that lies behind the orders.
The hon. Member for Moray asked which four authorities in England were without schemes. The answer is Staffordshire county council, Barking and Dagenham, Southwark and the City of London. I understand that the first three authorities are considering submitting a scheme. The City of London has an agreement with Westminster for the provision of child care and adoption services where needed.
The hon. Member for Bearsden and Strathkelvin was interested to know about take-up. Between 1983 and 1986 in England and Wales, about 6 per cent. of children adopted, excluding those adopted by step-parents who were not eligible for the adoption allowance, were adopted with an allowance. The signs are that the percentage has risen over the past two years. In Scotland, less than 25 per cent. of all adoptions by non-relatives that took place during 1983–87 attracted adoption allowances. That is covered by paragraph 3.1 of the report.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) asked about the Griffiths report. I can do little more than repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health said in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 24 January. He said:


The Government are…engaged…in working up our own proposals for the future of community care.
The Government are mindful of concern that we should reach a conclusion as soon as possible.
I hope to be in a position to bring forward our plans in the near future."—[Official Report, 24 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 527.]
I note what my right hon. and learned Friend said about consistency.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked whether allowances continue to be paid if adopters move out of the local authority's area. I am glad to say that all schemes provide for allowances to continue to be paid if the family moves elsewhere within the United Kingdom. Many authorities include provision for allowances to be paid if the family temporarily moves overseas.
I have been asked whether the provision is under-used. As the hon. Member for Monklands, West will appreciate, page 103 of the report, which deals with adoption allowances in England and Wales and updates the 1986 report, makes it clear that adoption allowances are now well used.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East showed the House his extensive legal knowledge. He is correct in suggesting that, as a theme, it is important that the interests of the child should be paramount. I believe that the Scots courts have adopted that principle for many years. I agreed with everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman said and—[interruption.] Perhaps I should not have said that. I must be careful in my further comments.
The hon. Member for Moray raised the question of the rights of an adoptive mother. If the hon. Lady raises the circumstances of the case to which she referred, I shall ensure that she receives a full reply.
The hon. Member for Bearsden and Strathkelvin talked about a national scheme. This is a simple, straightforward proposal, but it suffers from the fatal flaw of inflexibility. We believe that local authorities should be left to assess the needs and circumstances of individual children.
Uniform amounts of payments cannot be laid down because of the diversity of circumstances of the children and families concerned. The system of approval of schemes was intended to ensure consistency in basic principles while allowing for variations in the experimental period. In England and Wales regulations will draw on experience—

Mr. George Howarth: What does that mean?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question, I will happily give way to him.
In England and Wales regulations will draw on experience of schemes and research to provide a universal framework with scope for flexibility in response to the differing needs of children and families. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will study the particular points raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West and, if necessary, will write to him.
Hon. Members have not raised any fundamental objections to the orders. It is particularly appropriate that the hon. Member for Monklands, West participated in the debate in view of his long-standing interest in the disabled and the Bill that he piloted through the House. For my part, I was pleased to see the passage of the Law Reform

(Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986, removing the stigma of illegitimacy, which has now been removed throughout Britain.
The basic principle in the order is that adoption allowance schemes should facilitate adoption of children who would not otherwise be readily adopted. Such children include those with mental and physical handicap and emotional and behavioural difficulties. Permanent placement for such children is difficult and problems may be compounded by the age of the children concerned who may have passed the young age that usually appeals to most adopters.
Adopters must be assessed for their ability to cope with special demands. In those circumstances, the availability—

Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Minister mentioned local authorities, can he tell us whether the Government have consulted the local authority associations such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities? If he cannot tell us now, perhaps he could write to me.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will have to check that. I am certain that the views of the local authorities have been made known to the Government. I will have to check up on the dates. I am constantly in touch with COSLA and I addressed a conference on Friday about the Widdecombe report. That meeting was chaired by the president of COSLA. I will have to check on the exact time scale and the number of representations and advise the hon. Member for Monklands, West.
Despite the full range of central benefits and local services, family breakdowns occur and local authorities have a duty to secure the welfare of children involved through the implementation of relevant care programmes. Adoption and allowance schemes, by complementing those programmes, serve as a small but enabling measure to assist children with special needs where adoption is in their best interests.
The hon. Member for Moray asked about young persons infected by HIV. Local authorities already counsel foster parents who care for HIV sufferers. They might well regard such children, if they are adopted, as children with special needs. I would expect that that would would be the case. The order would help children in the special needs category.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East suggested that children in the special needs category require a range of resources including extra clothes and footwear, holidays, respite care and visits to special services. Our position tonight is strengthened by research which corroborates the view that adoption allowances are necessary in some cases, even in situations where the family was initially hesitant about accepting an allowance. There is clear evidence from the research of families who came to appreciate the continued extra financial demands which children were making on them and were glad that the allowances were awarded, despite their initial hesitation.
As to the cost to local authorities, the current adoption allowance rates, which are in line with rates recommended by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, range from £25 to £46 per week, depending on the child's age. Child benefit is available to persons who adopt children, so those who may be eligible for adoption allowances will


generally receive allowances lower than boarding out allowances—whose recipients are not eligible for child benefit. In other words, child benefit is available to adopters but not to foster parents. However, foster parents are eligible for the boarding out allowance, which is not available to those who adopt on a permanent basis.
It is true that child benefit is taken into account, except where a family is in receipt of income support since in those cases the child benefit element is deducted at source by the Department of Social Security. In other words, families receiving income support will not sustain a double deduction—which I believe is the point that particularly concerned the hon. Member for Moray.
At present, more than 100 adoption allowance schemes operate in England and Wales. Individual approvals for such numbers create understandable processing problems for the Department of Health. A regulation-making power is therefore to be introduced for England and Wales, as an amendment to the Children Bill now before Parliament, to produce a less cumbersome system. In future, agencies will be able to operate schemes within specific regulations, rather than as a result of individual approvals. However, the scale of operation in Scotland is considerably smaller, with only 12 schemes, and allows for individual approval by the Secretary of State without regulations. Twelve local authority schemes have been introduced without particular difficulty and are working smoothly. It is not intended to make any change to the schemes as set out in section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. In those circumstances, I strongly recommend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Funeral Costs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I have no doubt that the Minister will have read early-day motion 258, supported by 61 right hon. and hon. Members, asking for a specific and detailed inquiry by a Select Committee into the A to Z framework of the funeral industry. That motion quotes official figures from the Office of Fair Trading in the last three weeks showing that 75 per cent. of funeral directors ignore the very code of practice agreed between Government, this House and the industry's associations in respect of advising arrangers of funerals of their rights—particularly in respect of estimates.
This is a delicate and sensitive subject, and one that is regarded as being taboo. No one likes talking about funerals in terms of being a commercial proposition, but I shall do so this evening. Neither does anyone like talking about something that should usually be addressed in sympathetic and diplomatic terms. One is talking about distress, bereavement and other matters of delicacy.
It can be readily understood that the subject of death is largely taboo, and that the ordinary funeral arranger has traditional methods of dealing with the local funeral director. These are established family firms, with which—generation after generation—bereaved families have dealt. But certain problems have now arisen.
I use the word "arrangers" to describe those who "negotiate", as it were, on the type of funeral desired by the bereaved. The "industry" is now turning over £2,500 million a year in funeral costs and roughly £1,000 million a year in ancillary costs—flowers, obituary notices and so forth. It is big business, by any stretch of the imagination. And, as the OFT report points out, a monopoly is being created. Local firms are constantly being taken over by larger companies, while still operating as the same local family firms in the community. Ordinary people believe that they are still dealing with the same undertaker, well established for many years and with a local system, character and tradition.
According to the OFT report, funeral charges have escalated in the past 12 years at a rate of some 28 per cent. above that of inflation. Some 18 months ago I received a complaint from a constituent whose father had died. The funeral was arranged and the bill paid. Within three and half weeks the mother also died and exactly the same arrangements were made, but the bill differed from the first by £106.
When the funeral arranger and I asked the reason for such a discrepancy in a period of three and a half weeks, we were told that the firm had been subjected to a takeover bid: a larger company had bought it out, leading to an increase in overheads generally and an increase in what could be described—;unfortunately—as "profit margins".
I then conducted an inside investigation—a modern technique. I spent some time with a couple of coffin manufacturers. I visited their factories and saw the investment that they had made in modern machinery. I examined their labour costs, which they willingly showed me, and also the supply costs to the directors and the various organisations that were now part of the monopoly.
I was astonished to find that the cost of a simple coffin—including all the trade names—to be used in


crematoriums showed, when prices were compared, that the profit margin varied by between 500 and 1,500 per cent. That is bringing the profession into disrepute. The selfish profit margin has been increased to a degree that most people, deplore.
According to the report, prices for a coffin vary from £19·50 to £27, depending on the type and grade of coffin. The OFT report did not probe profit margins. It said that that was not its remit. It referred to 2,500 firms of funeral directors in the United Kingdom trading through nearly 4,000 outlets. There have been about 650,000 funerals each year during the last decade.
The report pointed out that the average cost of a funeral was £586. That figure enables us to work out the industry's approximate turnover. That turnover leads to considerable doubt about whether the industry is obtaining a reasonable profit margin. However, many independent funeral directors run their businesses with the dignity and respect that ought to accompany funeral services. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the big businesses that are creating monopolies. I intend to refer fairly and rationally to a few of them and to draw some comparisons.
The report refers to the code of practice that has been adopted by the National Association of Funeral Directors. It points out that 75 per cent. of funeral directors do not honour their code of practice. It says that if they cannot get their act together within the next six months, the Government ought to consider legislation to bring some discipline into the industry.
The report stated:
Under the code funeral directors should 'provide clients with full and fair information about their services…The funeral director must explain to his client the types of funeral he has on offer, and their cost, and relate these to the wishes and needs of the client"'.
Clients are understandably confused and distressed at such times. People usually accept what they are offered under such circumstances without questioning. But the association is not imposing and implementing the code.
The report describes how certain enterprises obtain monopoly control. Some firms still operate under their traditional local names. I am a member of the racing of bloodstock all-party committee. We know that four major firms control about 86 per cent. of dog and horse-race betting, but at least when those firms bought out the thousands of local bookies they had the common decency to use their own trade names. Hundreds of independent local funeral directors are being systematically taken over, but their new trade names are not shown. People still honestly believe that they are dealing with local established family firms of undertakers—but that is a myth. Deception and trickery are being practised. The sooner we open the doors of this highly secretive industry, the better.
The report says that estimates should be itemised before a funeral takes place so that the arranger can choose the type of funeral he wants according to what he can afford. That is not being done; 75 per cent. of firms do not do it. A constituent of mine asked twice for a estimate for a funeral that took place on 19 January 1989. I quote:
Professional …charges …£350 … 
Supplying Worcester Coffin …£158".
Disbursements are then listed. Funeral directors have no control over these, admittedly.
The bill was for a simple, dignified funeral. I shall list its basic elements, as agreed under the code of practice. My

constituents had asked twice for estimates, but none had been forthcoming. So she decided to ask other firms and chose one of them—Monks—because of the shortage of time. The total cost was £791. I remind the House that the average cost for the whole country, according to the Office of Fair Trading, is £586. This was a simple dignified funeral—what we call a basic service and what the association calls a basic service.
I want to explain what happened. Because estimates were not forthcoming, quite understandably the woman had to accept that the sooner the funeral could take place the better. Later this lady received from a competitor firm an estimate for exactly the same amount.
The Bolton Metropolitan borough council—described as a very forward-looking, progressive authority, prudent with its finances and its ratepayers' interests—along with the Wigan Metropolitan borough council, is offering an exactly similar low-cost dignified funeral service: the embalming, the dressing, the plate, the funeral undertaker's chapel of rest, conveyance, arrangements for the crematorium or cemetery, hearse, following limousine, basic funeral staff, floral tributes if required, oak-veneer coffin, engraved plate and handles, fees for doctors arid clergy, any particular religious request, and transport of the deceased to the church or chapel. The cost is £366. That woman would obviously have accepted that estimate, but she did not have the opportunity because what the code of practice of the National Association of Funeral Directors says was not delivered. In my view, that is contemptible.
I am not saying that the majority of funeral directors behave in that way, but I do say to the Minister that if undertakings given by the national association are not honoured this House is duty-bound to examine what is going on and, if necessary, to legislate. Even the report of the Office of Fair Trading says that if something is not done within six months to ensure satisfactory performance, in terms of open advertising of cost and code of conduct, some action will have to be taken. There is increasing public anger about escalating funeral costs and about the veil of secrecy in the industry, and unless something is done public reaction and mistrust will become greater and greater.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively. His civil servants put a query to me this evening, and I had the common courtesy to tell them that the report of the Office of Fair Trading would be the main basis of my remarks. I exhort the Minister to consider what has been said and to examine the industry, about the framework of which I have talked, and the high degree of secrecy—in particular Hodgson Holdings raising from one-twelfth to 6 per cent. its share of the total market. In the case of the funeral service I mentioned, the lady could have saved about £500. We really should be asking whether a monopoly is developing in the industry. I hope that the Minister has taken note of what I have said and will recommend to the Secretary of State that action be taken.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) on bringing this important subject to the House's attention. I hope that, in the eight or so minutes left to me, I shall cover as many of the points that he raised as possible.
The hon. Gentleman rightly concentrated on the recent report by the Office of Fair Trading, which reviewed the operation of the National Association of Funeral Directors' code of practice, which has prompted a great deal of interest and, as the hon. Gentleman said so eloquently, some concern. We are all conscious that a funeral is not like any normal transaction. The House does not need to be reminded of that.
I would like to remind the House of the context of the OFT report. The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to encourage associations to adopt codes of practice providing a standard which promotes and safeguards the interests of consumers. There are currently 26 such codes endorsed by the director general and they form a valuable part of the consumer protection framework. The Government are convinced that effective self-regulation is better than regulation.
The director general's involvement does not end with the satisfactory launching of a new code. In practice, he keeps an eye on its working and his mailbag and the various statistics he collects are often a good sign of whether problems are continuing. Periodically, he will do a formal monitoring exercise. The recent report on funerals is just one of these.
A sample survey was undertaken of recent users of funeral services by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for the OFT. The questions asked in the survey were linked to the key requirements of the code of practice and therefore covered the quality of service, the price charged, and the quality and detail of information provided. The results form the basis of the director general's recommendations for improvement in the working of the code.
The conclusion of the survey, done in 1987—that the average funeral director's bill was £586 and that this represented an increase of 28 per cent. above the rate of inflation since 1975—has attracted much attention. The hon. Gentleman dwelt on aspects of that. The comparison is with another sample survey done by the OPCS in 1975 for the Department of Health and Social Security. The OFT report is careful to point out important factors qualifying the figure which it uses.
For example, the funeral director has little control over the cost of disbursements included in his bill, funeral directors' own costs such as staff and equipment may have risen above the costs of inflation and the two OPCS surveys are not directly comparable. Indeed, I do not read the OFT report as necessarily suggesting that funeral directors are overcharging, but it highlights the fact that the cost of a funeral is substantial, and that the bereaved sometimes find the final sum larger than they had anticipated. The hon. Gentleman gave examples of that. Those involved need more information at the right time and in a suitable form.
It is important to note what the report does not cover. The director general did not carry out a survey of funeral directors, and collected no information about their costs and margins. As I have already mentioned, the cost of a number of the elements which are part of a funeral service, such as local cemetery charges, the attendance of a minister, flowers, and notices in the press, are outside the funeral director's control. Disbursements to third parties

normally account for about 30 per cent. of total costs. The arranging of a funeral is a very labour-intensive service, and this also has a significant impact on costs.
The fact that during the past few years a number of small independent funeral director firms have been taken over—the hon. Gentleman stressed that development—is perhaps an indication that profit margins in some parts of the industry are low.
The hon. Member for Leigh expressed concern at the increasing concentration of the market, particularly in local areas, but the report tells us that the Co-op is the largest supplier of funeral services, with some 25 per cent. of the market. Hodgson Holdings has 6 per cent., Kenyon Securities has 4 per cent. and the Great Southern Group has 4 per cent. I do not think that those figures show excessive monopoly, although it is a trend which must be watched closely by the appropriate bodies and my Department. It is going too far to say that the market is in any way overwhelmed or dominated by that small number of companies. I am confident that the Director General of Fair Trading will remain alert to what is happening in the market and be ready to take action if and when the need arises. He has discretionary powers to refer abuses of monopoly and anti-competitive practices to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Indeed, the commission investigated the acquisition by the Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. of the Scottish funeral businesses of House of Fraser plc in 1987. It concluded that the acquisition would result in choice for the consumer being severely limited in certain areas in Scotland and the Co-operative Wholesale Society was required to dispose of certain companies it had acquired from House of Fraser. That shows that the mechanism is in place to deal with such developments as and when they arise.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Minister please respond to my hon. Friend's request for some action to be taken on the cost of coffins, which range from £19·50 to £27 but are sold for £150 or more?

Mr. Forth: The report has been produced and the OFT is examining carefully what is happening. It has already been in touch with the National Association of Funeral Directors and a meeting has been arranged for 22 February. That demonstrates the degree of urgency. There is no doubt that, as the association's national public relations officer said in a recent interview on Radio 4, the National Association of Funeral Directors is
very disappointed about some of the aspects that have come out of the report".
It is clear that the association is taking the matter very seriously. The OFT is following it up with the association and I am confident, indeed optimistic, that the association now has every reason to address the problems that were dealt with in the report and the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If it does not do so within the time scale mentioned in the report and by the hon. Gentleman, in six months' time further action can and may be taken by the OFT. My Department certainly will be watching developments very closely indeed.
In conclusion, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such important matters and for drawing to the attention of the House the report, which I believe is very useful. I undertake that we shall watch very carefully the


OFT's discussions with the NAFD in the hope that they will lead to a very real improvement in the position that he has described.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o'clock.